Singing For Satan---Part 9

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.

Nirvana and Kurt Cobain

 This week, April 5th marks the 24th anniversary of the suicide of Kurt Cobain (b.1967), founder, lead singer, and guitarist for the quintessential alternative rock band Nirvana. The group was started by Cobain in 1987, and although they only released three full length studio albums, Nirvana has sold an incredible 75 million albums worldwide. Nirvana is ranked number 27 on Rolling Stone magazine's "100 Greatest Artists of All Time," and Cobain is ranked by the magazine as number 45 among "The 100 Greatest Singers of All Time," and number 75 among "The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time." They were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2004, their first year of eligibility. 

Cobain and Nirvana are considered one of the most (if not the most) influential musicians of the 20th century. Nirvana has been called "The Beatles of the 90's," and Cobain "The John Lennon of the 90's." Just like The Beatles and Lennon, they are anti-Christian and spread an evil message. Cobain formed the band with high school friend Chris Novoselic (b. 1965) who played bass, and they recruited Dave Grohl (b. 1969) to play drums. The band was originally to be called Fecal Matter, but Cobain decided on "Nirvana," the pagan Hindu and Buddhist concept of a release from reincarnation, where your individuality is "blown out" like a candle. 

Cobain: In Open Rebellion Against God

Born in Aberdeen, Washington, Kurt Cobain's parents divorced when he was seven, an event that greatly traumatized him. He said, "I had a really good childhood… then a classic case of divorce really affected me." He would spend the rest of his childhood bounced between his mother and father, who considered him a "nuisance." Sent away to live with family friends who were "born-again" Christians, Cobain joined the sect, but it did not last long. (See https://hollowverse.com/kurt-cobain).

Around the age of 13, he became a frequent drug abuser, and became full fledged heroin addict by 1986. He penned songs full of despair and misery, echoing the state into which he had gotten himself. Cobain then turned to Satan worship as a way out and achieve respect and success. According to biographer Christopher Sandford, Cobain made it known publicly that his stated goal was to "get stoned and worship Satan" (See Kurt Cobain, Carroll & Graff Publishers, Inc., New York, 1997, pg. 42). 

Cobain was an admitted bisexual, and he would desecrate churches with Novoselic. According to Sandford, he spray-painted "GOD IS GAY" on the side of a Church and he would take song lyrics he was dissatisfied with and set them on "...fire and leave [them] burning on the porch of the Open Bible Church." Rolling Stone magazine reports he spray-painted "ABORT CHRIST" on the side of a church. In that same article, it is stated that "Cobain made a satanic-looking doll and hung it from a noose in his window." (April 16, 1992 issue). His biographer confirms that Cobain decorated his apartment with "baby dolls hanging by their necks with blood all over them," and he sported a most blasphemous decapitated statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (Kurt Cobain, pgs. 54 & 89). 

That a man this depraved could be seen as a "hero" and the anniversary of his suicide "commemorated" demonstrates the depths to which our society has sunk. Unfortunately, Cobain's degeneracy doesn't stop with sick and sacrilegious acts. He became involved with witchcraft and began casting spells. He met occultist author William Burroughs, a whore-monger and bisexual pervert whose book Naked Lunch (1959) was so perverse that it went to court as it was considered a violation of the U.S. anti-sodomy laws. Burroughs "accidentally" killed his wife in Mexico while drunk and "playing William Tell" with a pistol in 1951. He was convicted of manslaughter and spent time in prison. Burroughs had such an influence on Cobain that, "William S. Burroughs received ‘special thanks’ on In Utero [Nirvana's third album] for being a cherished inspiration to Cobain."(See Chuck Chrisafulli, Teen Spirit, Simon & Schuster, pg. 6 [1996]). 

Cobain was obsessed with Church of Satan founder, and author of the Satanic Bible, Anton LeVay.  He wanted LeVay to play cello on Nirvana's first album, but for reasons unknown, it never happened. It was through his involvement with witchcraft leading to Satanism that Cobain's inspiration for songs came via "automatic writing." This is a process by which a person's hand moves without them consciously controlling it. Demons are thus channeled. According to the Rolling Stone interview, Cobain was "...stumbling on melodies by means he himself didn’t fully understand." 

As a result of his inspirations for songs, the band was signed to it's first major label, DGC Records, and they put out their second album entitled Nevermind in 1991. The first single, Smells Like Teen Spirit, was an instant success; so much so the song has been referred to as the "anthem of alternative rock." By Christmas of that year, the album was selling 400,000 copies per week, outselling Michael Jackson, and culminating with 30 million copies sold. DMG was shocked as they didn't expect it to sell more than 250,000 copies in total. Immediately shooting to superstardom, the band put out its third album In Utero in 1993, another enormous success.

Nihilistic Rantings

In the original cover, the baby's penis is clearly displayed. Outrage from decent people forced them to put out a second cover without displaying the genitalia of  the child

 Cobain's demon-inspired music changed the face of rock (and even pop) music. While the message of rock and pop in the 1960s-1980s was about attacking traditional values, Nirvana led the way to attacking human existence itself. The ideology they sold was that human life is a waste spent in pain, and that the lives of others only serve to compound each person's suffering. Everyone is better off dead. Cobain, in spite of his Satanic beliefs, also held to pagan ideas as well. "Nirvana" is defined as, "... a blowing out, or extinction, of the flame of life; reunion with Brama." Cobain told Rolling Stone, "I would prefer to be in a coma and just be woken up and wheeled out on stage and play and then put back in my own little world." 

The song Polly is about the abduction and rape of a 14 year old girl which took place in Washington. It's based on a true story in 1987 when the girl was forcibly taken while leaving a rock concert. The malevolent miscreant proceeded to suspend her upside down from a pulley in his mobile home and then raped and tortured her with a blow torch. The song is told from the "point of view of the rapist." "Sick" doesn't even begin to adequately describe someone who would pen this song.

 Polly wants a cracker

I think I should get off her first
I think she wants some water
To put out the blow torch
It isn't me
We have some seed
Let me clip
Your dirty wings
Let me take a ride
Don't cut yourself
I want some help
To please myself
I've got some rope
You have been told
I promise you
I have been true
Let me take a ride
Don't cut yourself
I want some help
To please myself
Polly wants a cracker
Maybe she would like some food
She asks me to untie her
A chase would be nice for a few
It isn't me
We have some seed
Let me clip
Your dirty wings
Let me take a ride
Don't cut yourself
I want some help
To please myself
I've got some rope
You have been told
I promise you
I have been true
Let me take a ride
Don't cut yourself
I want some help
To please myself
Polly said
Polly says…

The song Lithium is about religion being the "opiate of the masses" as Communist founder Karl Marx said.

I'm so happy because today
I've found my friends
They're in my head
I'm so ugly, but that's okay, 'cause so are you
We've broken our mirrors
Sunday morning is everyday for all I care
And I'm not scared
Light my candles in a daze
'Cause I've found god (sic)
Hey, hey, hey
I'm so lonely but that's okay I shaved my head
And I'm not sad
And just maybe I'm to blame for all I've heard
But I'm not sure
I'm so excited, I can't wait to meet you there
But I don't care
I'm so hor*y but that's okay(vulgarity censored by me)
My will is good
Hey, hey, hey
I like it, I'm not gonna crack
I miss you, I'm not gonna crack
I love you, I'm not gonna crack
I killed you, I'm not gonna crack
I like it, I'm not gonna crack
I miss you, I'm not gonna crack
I love you, I'm not gonna crack
I killed you, I'm not gonna crack

The song I Hate Myself and I Wanna Die glorifies suicide and would become a "self-fulfilling prophesy:"

Runny nose and runny yolk
Even if you have a cold still
You can cough on me again
I still haven't had my fulfill

End it someday what's that sound?
End it someday what's that sound?
End it someday what's that sound?
End it someday what's that sound?

Broken heart and broken bones
Finger plaster cast and horse pills
One more quirky cliche'd phrase
You're the one I wanna refill

End it someday what's that sound?
End it someday what's that sound?

Cobain: Misanthropic Pervert Who Takes His Own Life

Cobain in his [usual] drugged out state

Cobain's widow, the equally detestable Courtney Love, indicated that his homosexual escapades went well beyond that of three or four men when she claimed that he'd "made out with half the guys in Seattle." (See Kurt Cobain , pg. 359)  He publicly French kissed his bass player, Novocelic, on Saturday Night Live [TV Show], and he would also publicly display his perverted penchant for cross-dressing while in concert. He would carry around pictures of women engaging in sex acts with animals (bestiality).

When journalist Lynn Hirschberg wrote of his wife, Courtney Love, unfavorably in Vanity Fair by calling into question her alleged use of cocaine while pregnant, Cobain stated, "I’m going to kill this women with my bare hands. I’m going to stab her to death. First I’m going to take her dog and slit its guts out in front of her and then sh*t all over her and stab her to death.” (See Kurt Cobain, pg. 172). 

That he hated people is evident from his biography where he is quoted as saying, "Ninety-nine per cent of humanity could be shot if it was up to me." (Do you think this might have something to do with school shootings? The youth look up to creeps like him). His biographer muses, "Nirvana and the new fauna of Seattle rock shared a number of attitudes and taste, including a form of exoticism centered on punk, a public display of apathy, a disinterest in work, the cult of feminism, and the subversion of traditional values via music."

 On April 5, 1994, Cobain went home and shot himself in the head with a shotgun. His suicide note was addressed to his "invisible friend" named "Bodda." He complained that "his muse had gone south." Typically, Satan gives you power only to take it away and leave you in despair. Despite having a wife and child, his music was the only thing he really cared about and it made him want to live; now it was seemingly gone, and he took his life at age 27. He thought of the false idea of reincarnation, "If you die you’re completely happy and your soul somewhere lives on. I’m not afraid of dying. Total peace after death, becoming someone else is the best hope I’ve got." Having gone to judgement, Kurt Cobain knows the truth, and he's not someone else.

Conclusion

Kurt Cobain and Nirvana poisoned impressionable youth with a nihilistic view of life. Cobain looked for solutions in paganism, drugs, and Satan himself. He "aborted Christ," the Only One Who could save him from his misery and give real meaning and purpose to his life. Worse, his music is giving the youth ideas that life is hopeless and you're better off dead. For those who think music couldn't influence people like that, tell it to the family of Daniel Casper, a then 28 year old man, who shot himself in the head upon coming home from a vigil for Cobain. A sixteen year old girl also went home from the vigil that day, locked herself in her room with Nirvana music blasting and shot herself in the head like her idol. 

According to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the suicide rate for teens more than doubled between 1962 and 1982. (When the faith was taken away via Vatican II). Between 1980 and 1995 the suicide rate doubled again for youth ages 10 to 14. Suicide has become the second leading cause of death among youth ages 15 to 18. But no one wants to blame the evil messages in music and the new paganism in the wake of the Great Apostasy. Ozzy Osbourne was sued because his song Suicide Solution led to teenage suicides, but First Amendment "artistic freedom" allowed Osbourne to prevail. 

The youth are going in the wrong direction. David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland shooting wants to take away the guns while doing nothing to uproot the reasons behind the shootings. It's analogous to banning cars to stop drunk driving. Do you think maybe the booze had something to do with it? If you really want to "March for Our Lives"---embrace the True Faith and March to Christ and His Mother.

To my readers: Mr. Michael Cain, owner of the magnificent website DailyCatholic.org, is fighting a brave battle against lung cancer. His bravery and resignation to God's Will is incredible; he is an inspiration. Along with Novus Ordo Watch, DailyCatholic.org is among the best Traditionalist Catholic websites. Please pray for Mr. Cain, keep him in your prayers, and have Masses said if possible. In these terrible times of the Great Apostasy, we need great people like Mike. He is truly "one of the good guys."---Introibo  

The Profits Of Doom

 Fear is a great motivator, and what could be more frightening than the end of the world? Fear can cause people to do things they otherwise would not; like donate money to the "prophet" who warned you about (or can save you from) the coming onslaught. Such was the case in 2011, when Protestant preacher Harold Camping told everyone that the end of the world would definitely take place on May 21st of that year. Forget that Our Lord Himself said, "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (St. Matthew 24:36). Harold Camping was "special"--he knew the exact month, day, and year of the Second Coming. Needless to say, that never happened, and hundreds of people quit their jobs, gave away all their possessions (mostly to Camping and his "Family Radio" station), and waited for the end that never arrived.Camping revised the date to October 21st, and when that day came and went, many of his disillusioned followers were now homeless and jobless. Camping never even attempted restitution. He met his own end in December of 2013, at age 92.

"Fr." Nicholas Gruner (d.2015), was the Harold Camping of "conservative" Vatican II sect members, and unfortunately, of some calling themselves "Traditionalists." I use the term "Apparitionist" for those who exalt private revelations (approved by the Church or not) over Church doctrine. "Fr." Gruner has been derided as the "CEO of the Fatima Industry," and with good cause. In this post, I will shed light upon Gruner, his skewed theology, and his never ending quest for donations to "save the world." (N.B. I personally believe in the apparitions at Fatima. I wear the Five-Fold Scapular, pray the Rosary daily, and attend First Saturday Mass when I can. However, I refuse to quibble over the "true meaning" of alleged quotes attributed to Our Lady, and I will never exalt a private revelation over Church teaching, which we need to know and follow now more than ever).

Meet "Fr." Nicholas Gruner

 Nicholas Gruner was born in Montreal, Canada, the fifth of seven children in 1942. He obtained a post-graduate degree in theology from Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. He was invalidly ordained a Vatican II sect "priest" on August 22, 1976. Two years after his "ordination" he began publishing The Fatima Crusader, a magazine dedicated to promoting recitation of the Most Holy Rosary. By the early 1980s, Gruner changed the focus to consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as requested by Our Lady of Fatima. This would be the beginning of his unrelenting promotion of himself as the only one who understood the "true meaning" of Fatima, and how he needed money to "make the bishops and pope" consecrate Russia, thereby saving the world from catastrophe. 

Gruner became convinced (in good faith or not) that world peace and the prevention of calamities could only be prevented by a collegial  consecration of Russia (specifically named) done by the "pope" and all his "bishops" at the same time in their various cathedrals. Anything else was "against Fatima," and could not save the world. In Gruner's own words, "I have taken it upon myself to defend the truth of the message of Fatima, with a full-time apostolate dedicated entirely to promoting and defending this Message." (See Crucial Truths To Save Your Soul by "Fr." Nicholas Gruner, Immaculate Heart Publications, Buffalo, NY, [2014], pg. 17).

I remember reading the Fatima Crusader back in the mid-1980s, at the height of Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. It scared me very much at the time, and I was wondering if he could be right about impending doom via nuclear war. The world was very evil, and punishment from God would be well-deserved. Every issue told the readers that "time is running out" to prevent all out thermonuclear war, and only Gruner's efforts to "get the pope and bishops to perform the consecration of Russia" could save us. It was never made clear to me exactly how he was "the chosen one" who understood what Fatima really meant, even when his own "pope" apparently didn't understand. It became evident as the years passed, and the dire warnings intensified, that Gruner was little more than an "ecclesiastical chicken little," asking for money by using scare tactics.

 In 1989, his magazine asked readers to, "Let Our Lady's hand guide you to write the largest check possible" in giving him a donation. That statement was the last straw. I threw the magazine in the garbage and refused to read it any longer, although I still kept some of his material from that era as a reference for what can happen when you make apparitions into "dogma." Gruner claimed about 400,000 readers and if they only contributed an average of five dollars each per year, that would be a cool two million dollars! How much does it cost to "petition" the "bishops" and the "pope"? Here's but a sample of Gruner's fear-mongering:

"Many bishops to this day do not know about the urgent necessity to consecrate Russia immediately. They do not know: 

(1) That world peace and the literal existence of various nations depends on it.

(2) That millions will die if it is delayed much longer.

(3) That the salvation of many souls depends on it.

(4) The we here in the "free" world will be overcome and enslaved by Communist Russia if it is not done in time." (See World Enslavement or Peace...It's Up To You, Gruner and other Fatima experts, The Fatima Crusader, Ontario, Canada [1990], pg. 45; quotes around the word free in the original, and the authors call themselves "Fatima experts"). 

Gruner kept questionable company. I had the displeasure of speaking with his friend and supporter Fr. Michael Jarecki (ordained 1944, d. 2012), a staunch Feeneyite and a member of "The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" in New Hampshire. In the early 1990s, I spoke with Fr. Jarecki on the phone about Fatima and Vatican II. He assured me that there was nothing wrong with either the Novus Bogus "mass," or Vatican II; there were just "abuses." He claimed anyone who thought differently was incapable of reading the Latin text of the documents and terribly "uneducated." When I asked him if  that would apply to my spiritual father, canonist Fr. Gommar DePauw, who attended the Council as a peritus (i.e., a theological expert) and spoke Latin fluently, he said Fr. DePauw was "touched in the head" and angrily hung up on me! 

Gruner was not a Feeneyite by the end of his life (if he ever was one, I'm not certain). His "apostolate" was also praised by the "chameleon" himself, Malachi Martin (for more on Martin, see my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-chameleon.html). 

Was Gruner "Suspended" By His Own Vatican II Sect?

 I would get phone calls from Gruner's people asking for donations. As soon as I said I was a Traditionalist, they hung up. In the early 1990s, they changed their tune and said Gruner celebrates the Latin Mass (it would be invalid regardless since he was invalidly ordained in the 1968 Vatican II rite of ordination). When I pressed the issue and asked about the heresy inherent in Vatican II, they hung up. (Do you notice a certain pattern? In the days before cell phones and iPhones, my right ear was ringing a lot!)

Gruner was making a lot of money, and becoming very popular in certain circles. He tried to be "traditional" yet remain attached to Vatican II. He started to get the Vatican II clergy angry. Here is a brief, but accurate, chronology of his troubles with the Modernist Vatican:

1976 – Bishop Pasquale Venezia ordained Fr. Gruner. He refused to serve the diocese of Avellino and left for Canada without permission.

1978 – Bishop Venezia sent Gruner a letter saying that he could remain in Canada if a local bishop incardinated him. None did and no applications were made.Bishop Gerardo Pierro ordered him to return to his diocese. Fr. Gruner did not answer his letter.Cardinal Innocenti, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, wrote to him and ordered him to return to Italy and his bishop. Fr. Gruner refused.

1989 – Bishop Gerardo Pierro again sent Gruner a letter ordering him to return or find another bishop in 30 days.

1990 – Fr. Gruner went to Avellino and met with Bishop Pierro to give him time to seek incardination. This was granted but two years later he still had not started the process or found a receptive bishop.

1992 – Cardinal Sanchez and Archbishop Sepe stated in L’Osservatore Romano that Fr. Gruner and his Apostolate had not been approved by the competent ecclesiastical authorities (October 14, 1992).

1994 – The new bishop of Avellino issued a decree declaring Fr. Gruner a vagus priest. Such priests have no faculties and cannot publicly offer the sacraments. (See https://bloggerpriest.com/2014/03/28/the-sad-case-of-the-fatima-priest/).

Gruner appealed, and according to EWTN, also in union with his own Vatican II sect, "...the Congregation for the Clergy [decided] his priestly faculties (jurisdiction permitting celebration of the sacraments) have been suspended and his appeal of that suspension rejected by the highest Church court, the Apostolic Signature. However, I understand that he continues to publicly celebrant (sic) the sacraments, justifying it by arguments for the canonical invalidity of his suspension. What efforts he is making to settle this matter is not known."
(See https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/fr_gruner.htm)

Gruner: Recognize and Resist By Necessity

Gruner's entire "apostolate" revolved around the "pope" consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize if he became sedevacantist, his whole raison d'être collapses. Therefore, he became another SSPX, and parroted their whole theological line of off-kilter reasoning. "We are persecuted unjustly by true and valid bishops and a real pope, so we can resist them."  Gruner went so far as to use all the arguments of the SSPX.

In his book, Crucial Truths, he discusses the "fact" that Vatican II was "only pastoral" and not binding. On page 51, Gruner cites to a general audience held by Montini (Paul VI) on January 6, 1966 in which he said, "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility." There's a big problem. His citation does not end with a period. The rest of what Paul VI said (and Gruner conveniently omitted) was this:

"...but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme Ordinary Magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) Magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents." (Emphasis mine). If Montini was pope, all of Vatican II is binding on you and must be believed. On pages 57-60, he brings up the argument that the documents of Vatican II are not heretical, but only ambiguous. This is patently false. However, even if I were to concede, ad arguendo, that the documents were merely ambiguous this is enough to condemn the Council!

The Church teaches that God doesn't allow ambiguity to be taught by the Church:

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)

Pope Pius VI taught in Auctorum Fidei, of August 28, 1794:

"In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

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. "

Private Revelations become..."Public Prophesies"?

 In his book World Enslavement(cited above), we read on page 105, "There may be 'private revelations' communicated to individuals for their personal good. But there are also 'public prophesies' given to the Church, affecting its conduct and the conduct of its members." From whence does this idea come? A Vatican II "theologian" and a "cardinal" are cited. What does the Church teach about private revelations? Pope Benedict XIV taught, "It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pious belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II). What does the Church say about "public prophesies"? Nothing. It was made up.

Finally, Gruner seems to have settled on "resignationism" before his death. There is reason to believe he thought Ratzinger's resignation was invalid so he is still "pope," not Bergoglio. This would make him popular in "conservative" and (sadly) even some "Traditionalist" circles, while he can still have a "pope" to perform a consecration. He told people to stay "in the Church (sic)" regardless.(See http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2017/08/fr-gruner-in-october-2014-man-must-be.html). 

Some Serious Problems with Gruner's Position

•  With all his doomsday predictions, we are still here. He never set a date, but "millions will die" if the consecration "is delayed much longer." This went on from circa 1982 with more and more urgent and dire predictions for the world until just before his death (2015).  

• He constantly asked for money

• In spite of all the money he took in and publications he distributed, how could he claim with a straight face that "many bishops" and the so-called "pope" don't know "the truth"?

• His own sect rejected him and suspended him

• He adopts the "recognize and resist" position to defend his theory

• If the post-V2 "popes" are legitimate, wouldn't they know what to do? How does Gruner know more (and know better) than his own alleged "pope"?

• He makes up a novel theological idea of "public prophesies" 

• Told people to "remain in the Church (sic)" whether Ratzinger or Bergoglio is "pope"--keeping people OUT of the True Church and in the Vatican II sect

• His idea of a consecration followed by peace or else the annihilation of millions is very difficult to square with the Apocalypse. The "Third Secret" was spoken of with "Three Days of Darkness;"another scary private revelation (See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/09/shedding-some-light-on-three-days-of.html)

• The idea of bishops being "collegial" in the sense of needing to work with the pope to make something efficacious, or that something is lacking in the pope without the bishops, is the false theology of Vatican II 

Conclusion

We may be in the end times, but I don't know this for sure. Don't fall for fear-mongering clerics who seek donations. Stay close to the sacraments. We will have to meet God either at the Second Coming, or when we die, so always be ready to meet your Maker. The teaching of the Church is what matters, not private revelation, and not even when approved by the Church. If any Apparitionist tries to scare you, stay strong and don't listen because as Our Lord said of His return, "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (St. Matthew 24:36).

That "Fr." Gruner was a false prophet (making lots of profits) is evident in that he kept saying "the end is near," yet here we are. Remember the words of Scripture, "Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it cometh not to pass: that thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath forged it by the pride of his mind: and therefore thou shalt not fear him." (Deuteronomy 18:22). 

The Ordinary Magisterium Of The Papacy

 There are many Traditionalists who incorrectly believe that only ex cathedra pronouncements of the pope need to be followed or believed. Hence, when Pope Pius XII promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, defining the Assumption of Mary, using his charism of papal infallibility, it must be believed or else you are a heretic. (This is correct). They then assert, incorrectly, that when a pope issues a decree that is not infallible, like Pope Pius XII's encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (on Sacred Scripture), a true Catholic does not have to assent to it. They fail to grasp the Ordinary Magisterium of the papacy and all it implies. The purpose of this post is to set forth this teaching authority of a true pope, and the disastrous consequences which follow when it is either denied or not understood.

The Teaching Authority of the Pope

 On August 12, 1950, Pope Pius XII promulgated his encyclical Humani Generis, which exposed and rejected some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine. His Holiness asked the great Thomist and Dominican theologian, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, a fervent anti-Modernist, to draft the encyclical. Paragraph number 20 of that document states:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

This paragraph brings forth great theological truths. I will condense the commentary on these truths as written by theologian Fenton. 

1. The teachings of the pope are not to be minimized based on the subterfuge that he is not exercising the fullness of his authority.

The teachings of the encyclicals posits an assensum per se (an assent by its very nature), because it is a teaching of the supreme doctrinal authority within the One True Church of Christ. Catholics are bound to give, not merely a polite acknowledgement, but a genuine and sincere acceptance, to the teachings which the pope sets forth with a theological qualification less than de fide (of faith--infallible) or even doctrina certa (certain doctrine). 

Humani Generis thus reasserts the right of the Supreme Pontiff to command "opinionative"assent.  When in his encyclicals, or in any other documents or utterances of his doctrinal office, he imposes a teaching upon the members of the Church with anything less than his supreme authority (i.e., as infallible), the faithful must accept his opinionative judgement as their own. The obligation to assent  is not satisfied when a person merely allows that a teaching set forth in a non-infallible papal pronouncement is a "respectable opinion." Catholics are bound, guided by the teaching authority of Christ which comes to them in the declarations of His Vicar on Earth, to take that opinion as their own.

The day may come when an opinion of this kind needs to be modified. The Church Herself allows for this possibility by not proclaiming it as definitive and binding for all time. The holding of this opinion will possibly be seen as no longer necessary for the purity of the faith. The labors of the approved theologians will, in large part, be responsible for this development. The modifications of these declarations, when and if such modification ever comes, in no way violates the infallibility or Indefectibility of the Church since the doctrine in question was never presented as infallible and irreformable teaching.

2. The pope also teaches in a universal and ordinary manner; encyclicals are always based largely on assertions that have been taught by the Magisterium (in one form or another) before.

The First Vatican Council infallibly defined that a dogma of the faith is a truth which the Church finds contained in either of the two sources of Revelation (Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and which She presents as divine revelation that all must accept as such. The Council goes on to explain that such presentation may be done in an extraordinary manner (infallible definitions of popes and ecumenical councils), or in a universal and ordinary way (the unanimous teachings of the approved theologians or teachings of the bishops spread throughout the world). 

Vatican Council I also presents as dogmatic the assertion that the pope enjoys the same infallibility in defining dogma that the universal Church possesses. Since the bishops can define a dogma in an extraordinary way (ecumenical council called and approved by the pope), or in a universal and ordinary way (when approving theology manuals and catechisms, etc.), it follows that the pope can also teach in an extraordinary manner (ex cathedra pronouncements like the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, canonizations, etc.), he can also do so in an ordinary way, as in an encyclical letter. The pope's teaching is truly universal because he exercises true episcopal jurisdiction over each of the faithful. Many theologians consider the papal bull Apostolicae Curae of Pope Leo XIII, declaring Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void," to be in this category of a dogmatic pronouncement. 

3. When the pope passes judgment on a disputed theological point, it is no longer up for debate and discussion among theologians. This is one (but not the only) sign that the pope has exercised his supreme authority in an ordinary manner.

An example of this is the encyclical Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII. The question was disputed as to whether bishops receive their episcopal jurisdiction immediately from Christ, or from Our Lord through the Roman Pontiff, in such a way that it comes immediately through the pope. A large number of prominent theologians taught that the jurisdiction came immediately from Christ; the majority of theologians taught that it came through the Supreme Pontiff. Pope Pius XII settled the question in favor of jurisdiction coming through the pope. Another example is the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis also promulgated by Pope Pius XII, who settled long standing controversies over exactly what constituted the necessary and proper matter and form for Holy Orders when ordaining/consecrating deacons, priests, and bishops. 

N.B. The above section was condensed from theologian Fenton, The Church of Christ, Cluny Media, [2016] reprint of 1951 "Humani Generis and the Holy Father's Ordinary Magisterium" pgs. 110-123.   

Problems for "Recognize and Resistors"

 Given the above, how can the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) refuse to submit to the following teachings of "Pope" "Saint" John Paul II in his encyclical Ut Unam Sint (all emphasis is mine). 

 Today we speak of "other Christians", "others who have received Baptism", and "Christians of other Communities". The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as "Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church".This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. (para. # 42)

Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them (para. #11)

Problematic, as they must give their assent. Yet, how can they assent to an encyclical that teaches an ecclesiology completely opposed to what the Church taught pre-Vatican II? Consider:

And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion...They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, para. #7)

Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him wholly and entirely. "The Head and the body are Christ wholly and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten son of God, the body is His Church; the bridegroom and the bride, two in one flesh. All who dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ, although they may be found in all places in which the Church is found, are not in the Church; and again all those who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head, and do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church"(Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, para. # 16). 

Remember, an encyclical is made up of assertions, most of which were previously taught by the Magisterium. Not so in this case, which is one of many such examples. Ut Unam Sint, clearly contradicts all that has gone before.  Yet, if your recognize the post-V2 "popes," you must assent to the teachings of Ut Unam Sint. The SSPX rejects how the Church teaches us. 

Problems for Feeneyites

In his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pope Pius IX declares in para. #7:

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

In the first part I emphasized, Pope Pius IX clearly states the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside The Church No Salvation). In the next part, he acknowledges that those invincibly ignorant, who live honest lives according to the Natural Law, and are open to the actual graces of God can be saved, not by baptism of water--or he would have written it--but "by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." God can infuse them with sanctifying grace and the True Faith before death (Baptism of Desire). "But it's only an encyclical, it's not infallible," the Feeneyites inevitably whine. As we see above, true assent must be given to encyclicals, but Feeneyites reject how the Church teaches us.  

Conclusion

When Traditionalists reject (or are in ignorance of) how the Church teaches us, error will inevitably follow. Non-infallible decisions of the pope are not "up for grabs" opinions that you can accept or reject at will. Those of the SSPX (and other R&R) reject this and wind up being pulled towards joining the Vatican II sect and losing the Faith. Feeneyites will accept only infallible decrees, and their own interpretation of them, to deny the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. 

In this time of the Great Apostasy, those of us who learn and accept the way the Church teaches us--- and we alone--- can hope to remain Catholic by God's grace. " But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13). 

The Malice And Snares Of The Devil

As you're reading this post we are now in the fourth week of Lent. The First Sunday and Third Sunday of Lent show us the reality of Satan expressed in the Gospel; when Christ was tempted by Satan in the desert, and when he cast out a demon from a man who was mute, respectively. My spiritual father, the late, great canonist Fr. Gommar DePauw, used to preach that there were two errors when it came to belief in the Devil: (1) those who believe in him too much, and (2) those who deny his existence.

In the former category fall our malevolent, misfit "monks," Fred and Bobby Dimond, who claim that Protestant minister, the anti-Catholic Dr. James White, is possessed. What is their proof for this claim?

• A video of a talk wherein the face of White is alleged to have "demonic facial movements" and the upper-left side of his mouth "moves unnaturally"

• Another video where White gives "the devil's horns" sign with his hands while pointing

• A still shot where White is looking down and you can "see what look like horns starting from his eyebrows and going up to the sides of his head"

• He is seen in front of a band with cymbals, hence a reference (they claim) to 1 Corinthians 13:1-2- "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not charity, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing." This is not offered as "direct evidence" but allegedly shows him to be without charity. 

That James White hates the Catholic Faith (the True Church--and the false Vatican II sect insofar as it keeps any of the true beliefs, at least on paper) is not in question. However, are we to ascribe demonic possession to all such people? One need not be possessed to hate the One True Church. The "evidence" for this "possession" in facial expressions, the curve of his bald head, and holding his hands as "devil horns," is laughable. (See http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/dr-james-white-and-demons/#.WqBvBtQrKt8).

On the other hand, we have atheist Dr. Phil Zuckerman writing in Psychology Today, "How can people seriously believe in the devil? The year is 2015, not 1315. And yet, the fact remains that tens of millions of Americans continue to believe that there is a magical, wicked, evil — oh, and smart — being out there doing magical, wicked, evil deeds and presiding over a fiery realm, where demons crawl and witches cackle. Oh, wait. No cackling witches. Just demons, right? (See https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201509/the-devil-seriously).  This man is merely a pompous pseudo-educated dolt, who makes light of things he obviously doesn't understand.

Fr. DePauw understood well the Latin aphorism, "In medio stat veritas" ("in the middle lies the truth"). Not everyone is demon-possessed, and yet Satan is very real, going about like a roaring lion, seeking those he may devour (See 1 Peter 5:8).  This post will attempt to lay out Church teaching regarding the power of Satan and his demons, and how to avoid opening yourself up to their influence.

Satan and his influence

What, exactly, can Satan do? Satan and his demons are fallen angels. As such, they are pure spirits with intellect and will. They are capable of things people cannot do, as humans are both body and soul. The Devil and his demons can hurt humanity in the following ways:

• Temptation. According to theologian Pohle,"Satan and his demons...continually strive by lies and false pretenses to seduce men to commit sin and thereby incur eternal damnation." (See Dogmatic Theology, B. Herder Book Company, [1945], 3:345). 

• Physical injury. According to theologian Ott, "The evil spirits also seek to hurt mankind physically also, through the causing of physical evil (e.g., Tob. 3:8, Job 1:12, 1 Cor. 5: 5)."

• Possession. Once more, from theologian Ott, "In some cases people are possessed, in which case the demon takes forcible possession of the human body, so that the bodily organs and the lower powers of the soul, but not the higher powers of the soul, are controlled by him. The possibility and reality of possession is firmly established by the express testimony of Christ, Who Himself drove out evil spirits and Who bestowed power over the evil spirits on His disciples (Church's power of exorcism---St. Mark 1:23; St. Luke 10: 17 et seq)." (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma , The Mercier Press, [1955], pgs. 121-122).

In addition, there is diabolic obsession, in which strong disturbances are imposed on the mind, e.g., thoughts of suicide, committing serious sins, or gender dysphoria. It can also take the form of an "infestation" in the house (e.g., hearing mysterious footsteps, bad odors with no cause--and all experienced by more than just the one primarily afflicted). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "But the influence of the demon, as we know from Scripture and the history of the Church, goes further still. He may attack man's body from without [obsession], or assume control of it from within [possession]." (See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm).  

According to theologian Delaporte, "Although very rare in ordinary life, obsession is very frequent in the heroic lives of the Saints...Persons of a nervous temperament and lively imagination, imagine themselves haunted by the  Devil, when there is nothing of the kind. People should not believe in obsession without the most convincing proof." (See The Devil, Does He Exist and What Does He Do?, [reprint from 1871], pgs. 129-130).  We must be on guard against Satan, yet not ascribe anything to direct demonic activity without ruling out natural causes, which will be the subject of the next section. 

Ruling Out the Natural Causes

 All Traditionalist priests, like those before Vatican II, must rule out natural causes if someone claims to be "obsessed" or another person is "possessed." As to the subject of "obsession," here are some natural explanations:

• Sleep disorders. Many times people attribute demonic activity in their lives because of things they experience when falling asleep or upon waking. Humans pass through a state of consciousness where they dream while partially awake, and problems may occur in those who experience it longer than most. This  is called hypnopompic hallucination when going into a full sleep state, and hypnagogic hallucination when coming out of a fully asleep state. These hallucinations seem real and may appear to be supernatural in origin to the one experiencing them

• Overactive imagination. Considering the amount of occult themes that completely pervade today's movies, TV, books, Internet sites, and music, there are people who are unusually sensitive to any sound or passing image, and will ascribe to it an other-worldly origin

• Medication. People (usually the young or the aged) have bad side effects to medications that can make them "see" and/or "hear" things

•  Neurological disorders.  One who seriously fears demonic activity must go to a neurologist and psychiatrist to rule out brain tumors, dementia, the onset of some psychosis, epilepsy, etc.

• Head or Eye injuries. These can cause people to "see and hear" things out of the ordinary

Once all of the above has been ruled out, then a priest may intervene with the Church's prayers for deliverance. It may consist in prayers over the person combined with an intensified prayer and sacramental life, and not necessarily the Rite of Exorcism.  

Signs of Demonic Possession

The Church has always recognized three (3) signs of authentic diabolic possession. Contrary to Fred and Bobby Dimond's contentions, it does not include facial expressions, hand gestures, or "looking like your head has horns." According to theologian Sagues, the signs of someone possessed are: (1) to speak a foreign language never studied or to understand someone speaking it; (2) to know things hidden far away; (3) to possess strength beyond one's age or natural condition. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, II B:221; these signs are also mentioned in the Rituale Romanum.). 

Possession, in most cases, involves sin. Some innocent children may be possessed because their parents were Satanists and cursed them. However, this is much more rare than those who allow Satan in by their personal sins. Any one who is in a state of mortal sin (or Original Sin), does not have God dwelling in them, and are ---already and in a real sense---a slave of Satan.  Fr. Gabriel Amorth (d. 2016, ordained 1954), was an exorcist in Italy, and the author of several books on demonic possession. He called the revised Rite of Exorcism "promulgated" by Wojtyla (JPII) in 1999 to be "useless" against demons. He continued to use the Traditional Rite of 1614. Unfortunately, he never saw the biggest helper of demons; the Vatican II sect from which he never separated himself; this is a complete mystery to me.  Fr. Amorth was validly ordained, yet the revised Rite was useless. Think of the invalidly ordained Vatican II clergy. No matter what Rite they use, they are not priests and it wouldn't be efficacious. 

The Vatican II sect helps Satan by taking away the Faith, morals, sacraments, Mass, and spiritual help everyone needs. Secondly, it helps the cause of Hell by not merely failing to warn people of grave spiritual dangers, but by actually incorporating them and promoting them. Fr. Amorth noted that there was more demonic activity than ever before. Here is but a partial list of things that can allow Satan into your life. See also how many are either used or never condemned by Vatican II sect clergy.

• Ecumenical services that, by their very nature, spit on the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("Outside the Church no salvation").
• Yoga
• Reiki "healing" (Bergoglio uses it!)
• Buddhist and other pagan forms of meditation
• Astrology
• Ouija boards
• Tarot cards
• Mediums and so-called psychics
• Pornography
• Joining the Masonic lodge 

The list is not exhaustive, as I stated, only partial. I must also warn you to stay away from influences that, although not necessarily a direct cause of possession, can lead you to hold erroneous ideas. Those ideas can lead to further actions which, in turn, can open the door to possession. These influences include:

• Horror films. They have gratuitous sex and violence, which desensitizes you to sins against the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Many also depict evil as good, or blur distinctions between them.

• Rock and pop music. The repetition of evil messages can subconsciously change the way you think, and alter the way you view life. (See my once per moth posts on rock and pop music published the first Monday of the month). 

• Fantasy and science fiction books and TV/movies. Many contain the idea that there is "good magic" and witchcraft is harmless (e.g. The Harry Potter franchise), or promote pagan ideas, such as pantheism ( The Star Wars franchise). 

Conclusion

Against the errors of atheists and Modernists, we know the Devil is real. However, we must not come to hasty conclusions that anything that goes wrong is the direct work of Satan. The fallen nature of humanity is inclined to evil. The temporary things of the world tempt us to sin. These are all too real as well. To be victorious over Satan and his demons, try to always remain in the state of sanctifying grace. If you (God forbid) fall into mortal sin, make a sincere act of contrition and get to Confession as soon as possible. Stay close to Christ in the Mass and Holy Communion. Pray the Rosary, and develop a pure devotion to the Immaculate Virgin Mary. Use Holy Water, and other sacramentals, especially the Medal of St. Benedict, or the Crucifix-Medal of St. Benedict. Have your house blessed by a priest, and enthrone the Sacred Heart. If you have a relic, give it a place of honor, praying before it. If you fear evil influences, pray also to St. Michael the Archangel, and St. Joseph.

Do this, and you will be following the sage advice of St. James, "Be subject therefore to God, but resist the devil, and he will fly from you. " (St. James 4:7). 

Singing For Satan---Part 8

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.

Tori Amos and the "Lilith Performers"

The 1990s spawned a new genre of music, known as "alternative" rock, or simply "alternative." It has its roots in the 1980s for those artists whose music was outside the mainstream and offered an "alternative." Ironically, by the early 1990s, alternative took the world by storm, replacing the heavy metal and hard rock bands of the previous decade at the top of the charts and becoming mainstream themselves. I couldn't help but notice that a new phenomenon was emerging within the music. While alternative bands and artists were known for their nihilistic worldview and angst-filled lyrics, there were solo female performers filled with hate and rage towards God, men, and life in general. They sought to be the antithesis of the Blessed Mother; embracing everything unholy and reveling in it with pride. 

While not as famous as most other performers, these women sold millions of records nevertheless. In the summers of 1997-1999, "The Lilith Fair" was started by singer Sarah McLachlan, to give female recording artists exclusive coverage to combat what she perceived as bias against women in the recording and radio industries. The tour grossed $16 million dollars in 1997, making it one of the most successful tours of all time. A partial list of notable participants included Tori Amos, Sheryl Crow, Natalie Merchant, Jewel, Meredith Brooks, and Joan Osborne. 

The fact the tour was named Lilith is telling about what these women represent. The name Lilith comes from the evil Jewish Talmud, and she is alleged to be Adam's first wife--made of the same earth as he. Lilith refused to be subservient to Adam, and so she left him to mate with an archangel named Samael, who tempts people to sin. They had demon-children together. The figure of Lilith is popular among Wiccans (witches) and other occultists. She is envisioned as promiscuous night demon who steals babies in the dark. Apostate Catholic turned Freemason Samael Un Weor (born Víctor Manuel Gómez Rodríguez in 1917; d. 1977), writes in his book Pistis Sophia Unveiled, that homosexuals are Lilith's "henchmen" and women who have and/or support abortion are close to her. 

In my opinion, the quintessential woman of alternative music is Tori Amos. I will give brief mention to some others. WARNING! The lyrics and interviews of these artists are extremely vile, blasphemous, and disturbing. I've censored them as much as possible.

The "Female Judas"

 Tori Amos (b. Myra Ellen Amos in 1963) was a musical prodigy, and the daughter of a Methodist minister. She began composing music at the age of three years old. She was admitted to the prestigious Peabody Institute at John Hopkins University in 1968, when only five years old--the youngest person ever admitted to the conservatory. She was expelled in 1974, at age eleven, because she liked rock music better than classical music, and didn't want to conform to the rules of the conservatory. Amos took the name "Tori" when her boyfriend at the time said she looked like a Torrey pine tree. She continued composing and playing music, and formed a 1980s pop band called Y Can't Tori Read (So named because she refused to read sheet music at the Peabody Institute). The band was a flop, releasing one eponymous album and breaking up. 

 At age 21, while playing at a bar in Los Angeles, a patron asked her for a ride home; Amos agreed, only to be brutally raped at knife-point. She later wrote a song about it entitled Me and A Gun even though the weapon was a knife. Her big break came after the failure of her pop group. She had a contract with Atlantic Records for six albums, so she completely changed course with her music and released her first solo album, entitled Little Earthquakes, which met with commercial success. It mostly dealt with her views on religion and sex.  She has had many successful albums since, and she is listed on VH1's "100 Greatest Women of Rock and Roll" list

Although  raised in a devout Protestant household, she rejected Christ for Native American pantheism (the belief that identifies "God" and the universe as "One"). She stated, "I have built my world through Native American mythology. Growing up in a strict Methodist household in Maryland, there was no room for me to explore spirituality. When I got older, I chose to look at Christianity as another myth." (See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithgoespop/2012/10/tori-amos-i-chose-to-look-at-christianity-as-another-myth; Emphasis mine). 

She is a strong supporter of sodomites. In an interview with Pride Source, Amos spoke of her (at that time) eleven year old daughter as follows: "She’s grown up with gay people in our life. We have people from all walks of life on our crew – gay women and gay men that we work with. She’s been brought up in it...I had a chat with her once that if she ever came home and said she was a lesbian then that’s her choice. " (See https://pridesource.com/article/49435/). 

In reference to sodomite "marriage" and Christian opposition, she said, "If anybody calls themselves a Christian, I don’t see how you can ban consenting adults. I just don’t understand how you can see yourself as Christian and have no compassion for another person’s path. It goes against the Christ-like energy and light that I was brought up with."

In her song Spark, Amos mocks God's plan and wants to be like Judas Iscariot:

She's addicted to nicotine patches
She's addicted to nicotine patches
She's afraid of the light in the dark
6:58 are you sure where my spark is here here here
She's convinced she could hold back a glacier
But she could'nt keep baby alive
Doubting if there's a woman in there somewhere here here here
You say you don't want it again and again but you don't don't really mean it
You say you don't want it this circus were in but you don't, don't really mean it, don't Really mean it
If the divine master plan is perfected
Maybe next I'll give Judas a try (Emphasis mine)

In a 1992 interview with Hot Press magazine, Amos blasphemously suggested Christ and St. Mary Magdalene had sexual relations: "I’ve nearly always believed that Jesus Christ really liked Mary Magdalene and that if he was, as he claimed to be, a whole man, He had to have sexual relations with her…I may have felt guilty at the thought of wanting to do it with Jesus but then I say why not? He was a man." (Emphasis in original).

Her song Crucify mocks both Christ (Who can't be found), and His Church which is about "guilt":

I've been looking for a savior in these dirty streets
Looking for a savior beneath these dirty sheets
I've been raising up my hands
Drive another nail in
Got enough GUILT to start 
My own religion (Emphasis in original).

In a 1998 interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Amos declared, "Yes, I do have a mission, to expose the dark side of Christianity." In the same interview, she spews forth these most vulgar and blasphemous words, "Why don’t people want to hear about God getting a b*** j** ?(disgusting reference to oral sex, censored by me--Introibo) I thought those born-again Christians would love that." (See https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tori-amos-secret-garden-19980625). 

Tori Amos tells who is behind her music in the song Father Lucifer, which is a description of a hallucinogenic drug trip she had in South America in which she experienced meeting the devil:

Father Lucifer
You never looked so sane
You always did prefer the drizzle to the rain
Tell me that you're still in love with that Milkmaid
How's the Lizzies
How's your Jesus Christ been hanging

Amos just doesn't hallucinate about Lucifer; she actually credits him as being the guiding force behind her songs! In a 1996 interview with Spin magazine, she said, "I wanted to marry Lucifer…I don’t consider Lucifer an evil force…I cry and feel his presence with his music. I feel like he comes and sits on my piano."

I'm sure he does, and Ms. Amos is his willing pawn. I find it more than slightly interesting that those who practice pagan religion often claim that "Lucifer" or "Satan" simply represents "nature" or "impulses" in humans, yet they attribute the actions of an intelligent being to him, e.g., "marry" and helping to compose music. What impersonal "force of nature" or "human impulse" could be the subject of such desires or cause of such things?

Sarah McLachlan

Canadian singer Sarah McLachlan (b. 1968), is the founder of the 1997-1999 Lilith Fair. Although calling herself an agnostic (and almost nothing known about her religious upbringing), MacLachlan made a statement that she recognizes pantheism (much like Amos). In a radio interview, she said, "I don’t believe that there’s a guy up there watching down upon all of us. But I do believe that the idea … how do I explain this? God is energy. God is nature. God is in us. God is everything that breathes and lives, that connects us to ourselves and each other. It probably sounds really corny."

Again, she once stated, "I don’t follow any organized religion, but I do believe in the idea of god (sic) as a verb — being love and light, and that we are part of everything as everything is part of us." (See http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1465316; See also https://aolradio.slacker.com/).

McLachlan is a rabid pro-abortionist, yet feels strongly against killing baby seals. She said, "The commercial sealing industry in Canada is perverse and sick… They club these seals as early as 12 days old, and half the time they hook them and they drag them across the ice… It’s archaic, and it’s horrible, and I want it to stop." Typical feminist/Wiccan/eco-worship nonsense: killing baby seals is horrific (it is bad) and must be banned, but murdering an innocent unborn baby by abortion is a "woman's right to choose."

The January 1998 edition of Details magazine, McLachlan told the interviewer that she acts on her sexual impulses, and in February of that same year, told US magazine, "I'm such a slut." She did a remake of the 1980s group "XTC" song Dear God; an atheistic anthem full of anti-Christian blasphemy and hatred.

Dear God, hope you get the letter and
I pray you can make it better down here
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
But all the people that you made in your image
See them starving on their feet
'Cause they don't get enough to eat from God
I can't believe in you
Dear God, sorry to disturb you but
I feel that I should be heard loud and clear
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image
See them fighting in the street
'Cause they can't make opinions meet about God
I can't believe in you
Did you make disease and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the Devil too!
Dear God don't know if you noticed but
Your name is on a lot of quotes in this book
And us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look
And all the people that you made in your image
Still believing that junk is true
Well I know it ain't, and so do you
Dear God
I can't believe in
I don't believe
I won't believe in heaven or hell
No saints, no sinners, no devil as well
No pearly gates, no thorny crown
You're always letting us humans down
The wars you bring, the babes you drown
Those lost at sea and never found
And it's the same the whole world 'round
The hurt I see helps to compound
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost
Is just somebody's unholy hoax
And if you're up there you'll perceive
That my heart's here upon my sleeve
If there's one thing I don't believe in
It's you
Dear God

Originally released in 1986 by XTC, band member Andy Partridge, who wrote the song, loved McLachlan's cover version. (She sings it with much rage in her voice). Partridge, a self-professed atheist, relates that the song was written as a letter to God by a small boy (representing him at that age). As Partridge explained in an interview with SF Gate, "As a kid, I was really... I got myself worked into such a sweat over religion. I remember that, about the age of eight or nine, one afternoon I had visions in the sky of clouds parting, and there was God on His throne, surrounded by angels, talking to me and grinning at me. I mean, if I lived in a Catholic community, I could've milked that and made myself a fortune! But, no, I think it happened because I was in such a hysterical state about religion as a child, and about the existence of God and that sort of thing. Religion is a source of a lot of problems, and if there is a God, he would hate Christianity, he would hate Islam, he would hate Buddhism, he would hate everything that's done in His name, because nobody behaves in a way that you're supposed to behave." (Emphasis mine). This is who McLachlan admires, and what she sings.

In the Details interview, McLachlan sums up her ideology: "I think that the Devil has gotten a bad rap. The Devil is the fallen angel, the one who was willing to embrace his dark side, whereas all other angels were in total denial...The Devil is more like us..."  Her song Black takes this philosophy to its logical conclusion:

As the walls are closing in
And the colors fade to black
And my eyes are falling fast and deep into me
And I follow the tracks that lead me down
And I never follow what's right (Emphasis mine).

Joan Osborne

Joan Osborne (b. 1962), is a bisexual and apostate Catholic. In an interview with Beliefnet, she was asked if she still considers herself Catholic. Her reply, "Oh, no. I definitely lapsed out of Catholicism a long time ago. I educated myself about the history of the Catholic Church and was very put off by the history of it— just the Church's involvement in so many temporal things and political things. But, I think there is something that I retained from that,. I try to have that sense of a spiritual space inside myself and try to find that in the everyday world and in the ordinary world.

The readings that I've done in Buddhism have really affected me very strongly. [I] try to keep that mindfulness of ourselves as living in a spiritual space. It doesn't have to exist inside of a church and it can be brought to our minds and to our attention at any point and any place. To say that I'm a practicing Buddhist and sit and meditate every day, it's not true. But, when I do feel the need for that kind of solace, that a religion or a spiritual tradition can bring, that is the tradition that I turn to and those are the readings and writings that I turn to." (See http://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/music/2008/12/joan-osborne-interview.aspx?p=3).

Her one and only smash hit, One of Us, was released in March of 1995. It mocks God, and asks if you would really want to see Him if it meant believing in Jesus Christ.

If God had a name what would it be?
And would you call it to his face?
If you were faced with Him in all His glory
What would you ask if you had just one question?
And yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good
And yeah, yeah, yeah-yeah-yeah
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?
If God had a face what would it look like?
And would you want to see if, seeing meant
That you would have to believe in things like heaven
And in Jesus and the saints, and all the prophets?
And yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good
And yeah, yeah, yeah-yeah-yeah
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?
Just tryin' to make his way home
Like back up to heaven all alone
Nobody callin' on the phone
'Cept for the Pope maybe in Rome (Emphasis mine)

Well, in Osborne's wacky world, God won't be getting phone calls from Bergoglio, as he doesn't qualify for the office of pope.

Conclusion

 The crowning jewel in all of God's creation is a woman; the Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Unfortunately, some women choose to go the way of the mythological Lilith, a demon representing destruction and rebellion. The alternative rock women of the 1990s represent this deviance par excellence. They are hateful and angry towards God and the world. I can understand how the horrible crime Tori Amos experienced could make her bitter. However, we all have crosses to carry. We can be like the thief who mocked Christ and asked to be taken down from his cross, or we can be like the Good Thief and ask God to lift us up instead. 

Pagan religion, occultism, and carrying venomous hatred of God is a good way to ensure you're miserable in this life, and even worse off in the next. Avoid the wicked music of these women, and pray that they may convert and use their talent for God. They think they are "liberating women" with their music when, ironically, all they do is try to keep them in the bondage of sin and away from Christ and Mary--their only hope for healing and happiness. 

In The Beginning

 There has long been a battle of ideas regarding the origin of the universe and of life. It has (unfortunately) been portrayed as one of "science vs. religion." The people alleged to be on the side of science accept Neo-Darwinian evolution, while those alleged to be on the side of religion accept a literal Biblical account. To be certain there are scientists who subscribe to scientism, i.e., the application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method. The so-called "Four Horseman of the New Atheism" (Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens) clearly fall into this category. On the other side, there are those who think a literal reading of Scripture is the truth. The Book of Genesis needs to be understood as the One True Church understands it. If this were done, the false "science vs. religion" scenario falls apart. God is the Author of both true science and true religion, so that neither can contradict the other. This post will expound on Church teaching in this matter.

The Teaching of the Church

  On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree answering eight (8) questions about the Book of Genesis. The decree was approved by His Holiness, Pope St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism. The answers to the first three questions upholds the overall historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis, however the last two questions are instructive as to the mind of the Church in Biblical exegesis ("interpretation").  

Question # 7: "Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man's intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?"

Answer: In the negative.

Question # 8: "Whether the word yom ('day'), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?"

Answer: In the affirmative.

We see that in the response to question # 7, we are not bound to treat Genesis as some sort of science textbook. Question # 8 clearly shows that we are not bound to believe in six literal days of 24 hours each in the creation account. God created the universe in six yom, or time periods, the exact duration of which may be much more than 24 hours. Nor is it necessary to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. Modern science and Genesis do not contradict each other.

The basic gist of Church teaching in this area is set forth by the eminent theologian Van Noort:

"Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.

Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical." (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224; Emphasis in original). 

Let's take a look at one of the aforementioned teachings and how it squares with science.

The Extent of the Great Deluge

 Atheists will mock the story of the flood and Noah. The most frequent question is "How could two of every living thing fit on such a small ark?" Theists are left trying to come up with all kinds of solutions to a problem that is only apparent and not real. Actually, many of the problems evaporate like the flood waters once a correct perspective on the event is understood. As theologian Van Noort teaches, the deluge is about the manifestation of Divine Justice and not equally about the geographical extent of the flood. 

Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, everyone has begun to think globally. Even those who can't travel, can now see friends and family half-way around the world thanks to Skype and other technologies. I guess the song rings true, "It's a Small World After All." When we read the Bible, this view colors our perspective. In Genesis 7, we read phrases like "every living thing on the face of the Earth," and we think of the spherical body of the third planet from the Sun. What constitutes "the face of the Earth" from the perspective of the people of the time in which Moses wrote Genesis? This is how we would properly understand it, from their perspective, not ours in the 21st century. 

Consider that there are six (6) other events referred to as "worldwide" in Scripture:

• Joseph feeds the whole world. Gen. 41:57, "And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere." Obviously, the Incas in Peru and the Maoris in New Zealand didn't come. The worldwide famine was "the world" as known to the Jews of the time.

• The coming of foreign dignitaries to receive wisdom from King Solomon. 1 Kings 4:34, "  And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." "All people" extended roughly 1,300 miles from Jerusalem in any direction.

• The census decreed by Caesar Augustus. St. Luke 2:1, "And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled." Since the authority of Augustus only went as far as the boundaries of the Roman Empire, this was "the world"---the "Roman world." 

• The gathering at Pentecost. Acts 2:5, "Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." For Jews in first century Jerusalem, "every nation under heaven" would refer to the Roman and Parthian Empires. 

• St. Paul's words to the Christians of Rome. Romans 1:8,"First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world." St. Paul was not implying sub-Saharan people, outside the Roman Empire.

• St. Paul's words to Christians in Colossae. Colossians 1:5-6, "For the hope that is laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard in the word of the truth of the gospel,which is come unto you, as also it is in the whole world, and bringeth forth fruit and groweth, even as it doth in you, since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth." Once more, it means the Roman Empire.

The implication from all this should be obvious--the "worldwide deluge" was worldwide in respect to that portion of humanity to which God had spoken and in which Christ would be born. It was not worldwide geographically. This means that Noah's ark only needed to take two of every creature indigenous to the immediate area. The other creatures not exclusive to the region could find their way back into the area from other places in due time.

There is scientific evidence for a great flood in the area of Mesopotamia, but not, e.g., North America. The problem of the worldwide flood turns out to be no problem at all. Three more pieces of evidence that support the view of a localized flood:

1. Genesis 8 tells us how God removed the floodwaters using a wind. The drying method works in a flooded plain like Mesopotamia because water in such a flat region would flow very slowly to sea. The wind would speed this process and accelerate evaporation. It would do nothing for a global flood.

2. When Noah sends out a dove, he returns with a leaf from an olive tree. Olive trees do not grow on mountaintops, but on foothills. The water was not covering Earth, but a portion thereof.

3. The ark landed on Mount Ararat. Given its elevation at 16, 945 feet, must we not believe a global flood? No. The word used in Genesis 8 is har meaning the plural or "mountains of Ararat," which range in size from thousands of feet, to merely hundreds of feet. Noah landed on the mountains (plural) of Ararat, not THE Mount Ararat necessarily.  

Conclusion

I've use the term "Science Denier" to label those Traditionalists who feel the need to deny modern science, and impose certain ideas on people that the Church does not. We do not have to believe the world is 6,000 years old or be a "heretic." (You may, of course, believe it if you wish). We do not have to believe in a creation that took place in exactly six days of 24 hours each. We need not believe that the Great Deluge covered the entire geographic Earth. When you learn the teaching of the Church, you'll also learn how beautifully it fits with modern science.