Judge A Man By The Reputation Of His Enemies

June 23, 2018, will commemorate the historic 50th anniversary of the first public Mass offered by canonist Fr. Gommar A. DePauw at the Ave Maria Chapel in Westbury, New York. At that time, Fr. DePauw was literally, "the only game in town" when it came to offering the True Mass for Traditionalist Catholics. To be certain, there were other priests who offered the True Mass and kept the Faith, but they did it privately for small groups of the Faithful. The "big names" of Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Thuc, and Bishop Mendez, were not yet around. Bishop de Castro Mayer kept the Faith, but exclusively in his diocese of Campos, Brazil. Only Fr. DePauw was "in your face" and unafraid to take the fight for Truth and Tradition to the general public. He founded the Catholic Traditionalist Movement ("CTM") in 1964, while the damnable Robber Council of Vatican II was in session. Many Traditionalist clerics now admit what was known at the time; without Fr. DePauw and the brave Bishop Blaise Kurz by his side, many of the clergy that claim they were the "saviors" of the faith, wouldn't have come forth as they did.

 Fr. DePauw was in all major media, including (but not limited to), The New York Times, Time Magazine, U.S. News & World Report, WABC-TV, WNBC-TV, WCBS-TV, and on over 100 major radio stations covering most major cities in the United States. Father's radio Mass was begun with his own money he inherited from his father. It began on the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, October 4, 1970, and was broadcast in over 25 countries. For many, that radio Mass was their only connection to a True Mass offered by a real priest. Truth be told, the man typing these words wouldn't have the True Faith, had I not been converted by Father DePauw 37 years ago.

It's been said that a man is known more by the reputation of his enemies than by the friends he keeps. The aphorism certainly holds true of Father DePauw. Vatican II opened on Father's 44th birthday, October 11, 1962. The young canonist was a peritus (i.e., theological expert) at the Council, and assisted Bishop Kurz, Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Bacci, Cardinal Spellman, and Cardinal Ruffini--among some other notable names who were part of the Anti-Modernist group in Rome. Unfortunately, almost all of them fell victims of Vatican II with few notable exceptions.

One of Fr. DePauw's sworn enemies went to judgement on October 18, 2017-- the detestable apostate priest, Fr. Gehard Albert Baum, known more commonly as Fr. Gregory Baum. Baum was born in 1923 of a Jewish mother and Protestant father in Germany. He immigrated to Canada as a war refugee in 1946. While studying mathematics at McMaster University, a friend gave him a copy of St. Augustine's Confessions. Shortly after this, he became Catholic, and in 1947 he was ordained a priest in the Augustinian Order. His advanced learning prompted a quick route to ordination, but erudition without the True Faith and morals makes for a disgraced and wicked priest.

Baum Attacks Traditional Theology

 Baum was also a peritus at the Council, and aligned himself with the Modernists. He wasted no time under "good 'Pope' John" in showing his true colors. The line in the sand was drawn between the forces of good and evil. Just three months after the Council started, Baum was quoted in the magazine Commonweal as follows:

"The conflict at the Council is not at all between men who try to introduce new insights and modern ways and those who seek to remain faithful to the great tradition of the past. It is rather between those who seek to renew the life of the Church by returning to the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages and those who seek to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century and the anti-modernist emphasis which penetrated them." (See Commonweal, 77, 17 [January 18, 1963], pg. 436). 

The implication was staggering. Baum was telling the world that the theology manuals of the most learned and anti-Modernist clerics being taught in the seminaries (especially since Pope St. Pius X), were not "in the most authentic Catholic tradition of the ages," especially due to the anti-Modernism inherent in them. Some of the greatest minds produced by the Church in theology and Canon Law had to be banished from the seminaries so the work of Modernism could begin in earnest. To be jettisoned were such illustrious names as Van Noort, Tanquerey, Zubizarreta, Herve, Pohle, and many more. 

Fr. DePauw championed these same theologians, whose works he taught as a seminary professor for the Archdiocese of Baltimore. He taught Canon Law, Latin, and Moral Theology. Seminarians could expect to learn from the great Dominican moral theologian Prummer. In Canon Law, Buscaren and Augustine were used to form the future priests. The original Modernists would try and delude people into thinking that teaching like this against their abominable doctrines constituted some "theological excess," the antidote to which was "easing off" of Modernism. The ploy worked well. 

As soon as the saintly Archbishop Francis Keough  of Baltimore died on December 8, 1961, his successor, the loathsome Modernist Lawrence Shehan removed Fr. DePauw from his position as Dean of Admissions and replaced him with a young priest who was "pastoral" towards those candidates for the priesthood who were attracted to men (perverts). Upon his return from Vatican II, he found himself out of his teaching position, along with the other anti-Modernists installed by Archbishop Keough. By the mid-1970s, Mount St. Mary's Seminary was a cesspool of vice and error, giving Modernists and perverts as "clergy" for the Vatican II sect in Baltimore.

Fr. DePauw knew there could never be any "return" to a more authentic Catholic doctrinal tradition through the abandonment of the common teaching of all the twentieth-century manuals of theology. The infallible Magisterium of the One True Church never abandons the most authentic Catholic tradition because She is Indefectible. The tradition is manifest in the common teaching of the twentieth-century manuals, and in the condemnations of the various Modernist propositions. 

Baum knew that removing those theologians would ignite the revolution needed. As Pope St. Pius X wrote in his encyclical Haerent Animo, " In our own day, alas! it is the contrary that happens all too frequently. Members of the clergy allow their minds to be overcome gradually by the darkness of doubt and turn aside to worldly pursuits; the chief reason for this is that they prefer to read a variety of other works and newspapers, which are full of cunningly propounded errors and corruption, rather than the divine books [theological works] and other pious literature.

Be on your guard, beloved sons; do not trust in your experience and mature years, do not be deluded by the vain hope that you can thus better serve the general good. Do not transgress the limits which are determined by the laws of the Church, nor go beyond what is suggested by prudence and charity towards oneself. Anyone who admits this poison into his soul will rarely escape the disastrous consequences of the evil thus introduced." (para. #3, 1908). 

The Theological Onslaught Continues

Vatican II produced 16 documents; all of them heretical. There were four Constitutions, three Declarations, and nine decrees. Baum was one of the chief architects of Unitatis Redintegratio, the decree on ecumenism. It states in paragraph # 3, "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." (Emphasis mine). He also helped craft Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on Non-Christian Religions which praises demonic Islam, pagan religions (like Hinduism), and "absolves" the Jews from the sin of Deicide (killing Christ). He even had a hand in the development of Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration on Religious Freedom, which replaced the true Catholic teaching on religious toleration. As a result, false religions were allowed to proselytize and function in formerly Catholic countries.  Just look at Ireland which has officially sanctioned both sodomite "marriage," and just last month, stripped all legal protections from from innocent unborn babies. 

After Vatican II, Baum was involved with "Liberation theology" which is Marxism cloaked in religious language. He also is linked with "Holocaust theology," which despairs of the Goodness of God. Former Hitler Youth member Ratzinger, will bend over backwards to prove his acceptance of all things Jewish (like Baum who never really stopped being a Jew for all intents and purposes). As "Pope" Benedict XVI, Ratzinger stated, "In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can only be a dread silence – a silence which is itself a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this? " (See http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060528_auschwitz-birkenau.html) I guess Ratzinger never heard of free will and the inclination to evil since the Fall. That's what happens when you abandon the approved theologians pre-Vatican II! 

In the meantime, Fr. DePauw was made out to be a "rebel" or "disobedient" priest. More than once people were told by the invalidly consecrated "bishop" of Long Island, NY, John McGann, that Fr. DePauw was "no longer Catholic," and "excommunicated." To attend his Chapel would make them "excommunicated." Billy Murphy, the apostate from Boston who would become "bishop" of Rockville Centre (the Diocesan name for Long Island) in 2001, was even more hateful. While "gay masses" (sic) took place a mile away at St. Bridget's Church, he would only denounce Fr DePauw. When Father left this world for a better place in 2005, Murphy had the unmitigated gall to show up at the wake! I had the privilege of seeing the President of the Board of Directors refuse him permission to enter. "We don't belong to the same religion," he honestly told him. 

Baum was lionized in the press. When he died last year, many obituaries omitted the fact he left the priesthood in 1978 to "marry" his long time "friend" Shirley Flynn (a divorced ex-nun), and he remained with her until her death in 2007. Since Vatican II he was a strong supporter of sodomites. His autobiography, The Oil Has Not Run Dry: The Story of My Theological Pathway (2017), published just before his death, reveals that Baum himself was a sodomite and attracted to men since his youth. He writes that in 1986 he "fell in love" with another former priest and states "his unwavering love, which has given stability to my life as a theologian, has been a gift from God." (pgs. 114-116). This took place while he was living with his concubine, Shirley Flynn, whom he used to mask his active homosexual liaisons with her consent. Baum chose to keep his homosexuality a secret while appearing to be a faithful priest so he could subvert the Catholic Church. "I did not profess my own homosexuality in public because such an act of honesty would have reduced my influence as a critical theologian." His first homosexual encounter took place in 1963, while Vatican II was underway. It was a hook-up with a sodomite he met in a restaurant, and he found it "exciting."

Baum was the enemy of Fr. DePauw--how glorious for Father!

Enemies and Critics--Then and Now

 The leader of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement was insulted, despised, and calumniated for his unwavering fight "for Truth and Tradition." He fought the good fight and persevered until the end. During his life, he saw the Great Apostasy, and did all he could to stop it. That doesn't prevent his detractors from continuing to misrepresent and calumniate him even today.

The charges most often used against him:

1. He wasn't a sedevacantist. I believe he was since at least 1999, but at the beginning many were confused. Afterwards, he just wanted to believe that the Church was coming back to Her glory. It was hard for him to face what was happening. However, he never "kept people in the Vatican II sect" as "controlled opposition." He told people that the "Concilliar Sect"(as he called it) was NOT Catholic and no one could attend. Why would he not "go public"as a sedevacantist? Many people at the Chapel would have been scandalized and would have fallen into the clutches of the V2 sect's Society of St. Peter (FSSP), or the "Indult" fiasco. I believe he was acting with the best interests of the souls he had cared for in the decades past.

2. He didn't become a bishop and ordain priests. Bishop Kurz, the Bishop-Moderator of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, did indeed ordain two men to the priesthood. One of those priests, Gunther Storch, became a sedevacantist bishop through Archbishop Thuc. Had Bp. Kurz lived longer, who knows how it would have gone. Abp. Lefebvre and the others chose not to stand with Father from the beginning, but came out later and brushed him aside. He didn't trust them, and I understand why. On August 1, 1967 he was offered episcopal consecration at the hands of an "Old Catholic" sect bishop from the Netherlands. (Their orders are valid, and they thought Father was against the Church). Father rejected the offer and rebuked them for denying the One True Church. He informed them he was, and would ever remain, a Catholic priest. "I will remain as a Catholic priest, rather than receive a bishop's miter from heretics."

3. He was involved with Masonry. I put this in the same category as so-called Elvis sightings and alleged encounters with Bigfoot you read about in supermarket tabloids. Someday I will write a separate post on this calumny. For a short time, Father was fooled by some claiming to be a Traditionalist order. They were frauds, but not Masonic. He severed all ties. As a matter of fact, with his own money, he purchased a former Masonic Temple across the street from the Chapel under an alias, and then converted it into an annex for members of the Chapel to use. He also bought the house next door (still unoccupied) when he heard that Planned Parenthood was going to purchase it and turn it into a baby killing factory ("abortuary"). Father built a beautiful Bishop's residence across the street for Bishop Kurz. Unfortunately, the good bishop died before he could move in. It also remains unoccupied, as Father DePauw chose to live in a small one bedroom apartment above the Chapel, in the company of Our Lord directly below him in the tabernacle. He repeatedly denounced Masonry, Communism, and all other evils from the pulpit.  Hardly the actions of a "Mason."  People are given to speak and write without doing the research. One person wrote in the comments of one of my posts that Fr. DePauw was praised by Wojtyla (John Paul II) after Father died, proving he was in cahoots with the Modernist Vatican. I doubt that. Fr. DePauw passed out of this world on May 6, 2005. Wojtyla died 34 days prior on April 2, 2005.

4. He didn't reject Vatican II, he just wanted its "full implementation" and to keep the Traditional Mass along with the Novus Bogus. This is so misunderstood. Let me put things in context. In 2011, the New York State Legislature was debating a bill to legalize sodomite "marriage." A friend of mine was a member of the Legislature, and lead the fight against the bill, which unfortunately became law four years before the abominable U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). When my friend had the floor and was debating the bill, he proposed a novel idea to the Democrats; I'll work with you to draft a Domestic Partnership Bill, that will give homosexual "couples" all the same rights as married people under the law, but we just won't call it "marriage." The Democrats were outraged and demanded he give up the floor as they would never agree to such a thing!

 I asked my friend why he did that instead of condemning sodomites. His answer was brilliant. He told me if he had denounced homosexuals, the media would paint him as a "religious zealot" and "an extremist, homophobic bigot." By offering to give them what they ostensibly wanted ("equality"), without the name of "marriage," their rejection revealed the sodomites' true intention--the destruction of Holy Matrimony as it has been known for centuries through the acceptance of their perversion as both "normal" and under the name "marriage." The media quashed the story realizing they couldn't paint him as an extremist, and they would expose the sodomite agenda.

Likewise, when Father DePauw proposed letting people have the Novus Bogus, as long as priests could continue to offer the true Mass, he exposed the Modernist agenda when they refused. The True Faith and the True Mass cannot co-exist with Modernist theology! He successfully showed the Modernists as not wanting to "update" the Church, but they were on a mission to change Her and destroy Her (if such a thing were possible!).

One of Father's detractors is Theresa Benns, the ersatz female "theologian" who engineered the farmhouse "conclave" consisting of six people who "elected" David Bawden as "Pope" Michael. After telling people to follow this man or be "outside the Church," she rejected him herself and went back to being a Home Aloner. She led people into following an antipope, made Traditionalists look wacky, and now we're supposed to trust her judgment of a real canonist! This charge she brings against Father belies her ignorance of what was done and why. It's another "Monday morning quarterback" who can tell you what the team that lost should have done to win, never having played professional sports and not going through the situation at the time.

Conclusion

Fifty years ago, Father DePauw offered the first public True Mass in defiance of the Vatican II sect posing as the Roman Catholic Church. A man may be judged by the reputation of his enemies. Gregory Baum, was an apostate and pervert, breaking his vows even as he sought to destroy the Church by invalidating the Mass, the sacraments, and corrupting dogmas. He is the quintessential enemy of Father DePauw. When the bishops at Vatican II considered a separate decree on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Baum and the Modernists opposed it. The vote was the closest of the Council with  1,074 bishops in favor of a separate document for the BVM and 1,114 bishops against; a margin of just 40 votes stopped it. Baum was urging the vote against it, while Father DePauw was urging votes in favor.

In the November 1963 edition of The Sign, Baum had this to say: "There is no doubt that Mariology, or the Catholic teaching on Mary, is a tremendous obstacle to the ecumenical movement, because it developed since the Reformation. The two Marian dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are obstacles, because they are new and concern a subject not directly connected with our salvation and also because they are the only doctrines defined by the pope alone." So Mariology originated in the 1500s? The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are "new"? (Is that why there was a Mass in honor of Our Lady's Assumption from at least the eighth century?) These were the only doctrines defined by the pope alone? (Ever hear of canonizations or Unam Sanctum?) This was the drivel the Modernists were unleashing upon the Catholics of the world, while Father DePauw named his Traditionalist Chapel "Ave Maria," to honor God's Own Mother.  The fact that people of Baum's ilk, and self-professed "theologians" attack him, is a testament to his Catholic Faith.

As Father DePauw used to say, there were three groups of people around when he lead the Catholic Resistance to the Modernists: those who said it wouldn't be done. Those who said it couldn't be done. And those who said it shouldn't be done. By the grace of God, His humble servant, Father Gommar A. DePauw proved that it would be done, and the Church would continue as She must, despite the worst attacks of his (and the Church's) diabolic enemies. This Sunday, say a prayer for the repose of Father DePauw's truly Catholic soul, the first to stand up against the Modernists. Through him, God has proven that His One True Church may be attacked, but She shall never be conquered. 

Singing For Satan---Part 11

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.

Madonna

 Born in 1958 as Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone, the singer known by her first name started out like most entertainers, broke, unknown, and in New York. She found her break when she landed a job going on tour in 1979 as a dancer behind French disco artist Patrick Hernandez. A year later, she formed a band called Emmy, which played in dance clubs. Madonna claimed that one night, while returning from a rehearsal, a pair of men held her at knife-point and forced her to perform oral sex; she also claims to have been forcibly raped at knife-point at age 19, by a man who let her into his house to make a phone call, but says she never reported the rape.(See https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/madonna-on-stern-2015123/). She became a hit in Manhattan, and the local attention she received was enough to land her a record deal with Warner Records. Her 1983 eponymous debut album, Madonna, featured her first big hit song called Holiday.

 Not only did she become a smash hit in the 1980s and beyond for her music, she spawned a fashion trend among teenage girls in the mid-80s with lace tops, gaudy jewelry (blasphemously featuring crosses and crucifixes), frazzled hair, heavy bracelets, fishnet gloves and tops, and skirts over Capri leggings. Ciccone is one of only four artists to have started their career before 1990 and to have remained musically relevant after the year 2000 to most age groups (the other three being Michael Jackson, U2, and Bon Jovi). According to Guinness World Records, Madonna is the best-selling female recording artist in music history, having sold over 300 million units of her records. She is the highest selling solo touring artist, having sold over $1.4 billion dollars in concert tickets. She was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame the first year she became eligible, and Rolling Stone magazine lists her as number 36 on its list of the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time."

Blaspheming the Mother of God

Madonna Ciccone insults Jesus Himself by portraying herself as the crucified Christ during her "Confessions" tour in 2006. 

 A true servant of Satan, Madonna (whose very name invokes the image of the Blessed Virgin) attacks traditional Catholicism and God's Own Mother every chance she gets. Madonna is well known for her forays into expressions of virtually every sexual perversity while blasphemously connecting it to the Blessed Mother. Besides her name, she calls her first mega-hit song Like a Virgin. While on the Blonde Ambition tour, she mimed masturbation to the song while while topless men in foot-long point brassieres danced around her. According to People magazine she said, "As long as I'm riding high on the charts, I don't care if they call me trashy or a slut. I'm proud of my image." Other references to the Blessed Mother include two albums entitled True Blue (the color associated with the Mother of God) and a compilation The Immaculate Collection. In 1996, she named her daughter "Lourdes" and said she would be a "healing experience." (A reference to the Blessed Mother's apparition in Lourdes, France, and the miraculous healing that many have received there). She admits, "I'm a tormented person. I have a lot of demons inside of me. My pain is as big as my joy" (See Calendar Magazine from the Los Angeles Times, 5/5/91). 

Ciccone doesn't believe she's more obsessed with sex than anyone else. She will often claim Like a Virgin is not about losing your virginity, but feeling "fresh and new." Her actions, both on and off stage, prove that statement a lie. She told Spin magazine in June 1985 that she views Catholicism as "kinky," and sports crucifixes because "crucifixes are sexy, ... they have a naked man (sic) on them." She published a book entitled Sex in 1992. It is a "coffee table book" of pornographic pictures, including portrayals of sadomasochism and rape. Ironically, Madonna claims to have been a victim of rape. There's a picture in the book of her apparently being raped by Catholic (sic) schoolboys as she wears a Catholic schoolgirl's uniform. She said it was a fantasy of hers and, "I have a smile on my face because I'm having a good time." The book was released at the same time as her 5th album, aptly titled Erotica.

On March 31, 1994, she appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman. She asked Letterman to smell her panties (she came out on stage holding them in her hand) and used the f-word 14 times. It was the most censored episode in talk show history.

In 2006, Ciccone was performing her Confessions tour, and appeared on stage as "Christ" crucified to a mirrored cross and wearing a "crown of thorns." When her tour came to the city of Rome, the Italian "Catholics" bought up all the tickets. What did the Vatican II sect do? Ratzinger was silent, but according to the Associated Press, "Cardinal" Ersilio Tonini said, "To crucify yourself in the city of the pope and the martyrs is an act of open hostility...It's a scandal created on purpose by astute merchants to attract publicity." Not exactly the kind of condemnation one would expect from a "Prince" of the Church (sic). If Italy had still been an exclusively Catholic country, the show would have been banned and Madonna arrested had she attempted to enter the country. We can thank Wojtyla for changing that provision from the Italian Constitution in 1984. ("The principle of the Catholic religion as the sole religion of the Italian State, originally referred to by the Lateran Pacts, shall be considered to be no longer in force." (See https://www.religlaw.org/content/religlaw/documents/agritlhs1984.htm). Of course, any talk of excommunication would never occur except in reference to Traditionalists.

 The singer's New York-based spokeswoman, Liz Rosenberg, said: "Madonna does not think Jesus would be mad at her, as his (sic) teaching of loving thy neighbor and tolerance is Madonna's message as well. The context of Madonna's performance on the crucifix is not negative nor disrespectful toward the church(sic)." (See AP news of 8/4/06).  Whenever the singer is criticized, she claims that her critics are against her because "powerful women are a threat to society." She told Q Magazine in December 1994 that "women are not allowed to empower themselves without being labeled heretical and perverse." Along those lines she claimed to have "empowered" herself by having several abortions. (Read: "Empowerment = murder of innocent children").

Her 1990 song Justify My Love had one of the most controversial music videos of all time. Featuring scenes of nudity, homosexuality, mild sado-masochism, and other overt sexual situations, the clip was banned from MTV. As of 2002, the ban was lifted. Madonna's first movie was entitled A Certain Sacrifice (filmed 1979; released 1985). Ciccone portrays a Manhattan woman who lives with three "love slaves;" one male, one female, and one "transgender"). She falls in love with a man she meets and tells her three lovers she doesn't need them anymore. They sexually abuse her as a result. Later, she is raped by a strange man, and to exact revenge, her former slaves and the man she loves agree to help her. They dress up as prostitutes to get the rapist, and then take him by force to be killed as a Satanic sacrifice.

Madonna:Disciple of the Jewish Kabbalah

In the mid-1990s, Madonna converted to Kabbalah Judaism. She has even asked to be called Esther at times, after the Jewish Biblical figure. The Kabbalah is occult and anti-Christian. It was developed in the 13th century by Rabbi Moses ben Shem-Tov de Leon who wrote the foundational text known as Zohar, meaning "radiance." The reason for the Kabbalah’s emergence was that by around the twelfth century, Talmudic legalism, ritualism, and intellectual slavery had reached its peak (the Talmud is the body of  false writings that seeks the interpret the Law of God contained in Jewish Scripture). The Kabbalah became popular because it opened up an approach to religion that seemed more pleasurable, immediate, and less confining.

The word "Kabbalah" means "to receive," and refers to "heavenly revelation" received by Jews and passed on to succeeding generations through oral tradition. It is demonic in inspiration. The Kabbalah relies heavily on mystical interpretations of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) as well as the rest of the Old Testament. Its premises are that there are secret and hidden meanings in the Biblical text that can be discovered by examining the shape of Hebrew letters, the gematria of words (mathematical values), and how these word values relate to each other. This method is a form of occult numerology. The problem is that this method often draws conclusions that are in contradiction to the plain teaching of the text that it examines. Thus, the Kabbalah can have a variety of disjointed beliefs.

Instead of God banishing Adam and Eve from Eden, it is Adam who banishes God! We are still in "the Garden," but there is no connection to God. The Kabbalah is meant to put people back in touch with "God," who is described as equally male and female. According to one source:

 "While one can taste the teachings of Kabbalah even without being particularly observant of Judaism, you can't detach it from its source. Kabbalah is the heart of Judaism. A body without a heart is lifeless. A heart without its body is useless. Judaism without its mystical side can become dry and unattractive. But Kabbalah without the grounding of practical Judaism is an uprooted flower.

We are a searching generation. We've tried empty materialism and it has failed to sustain us. We have experimented with spiritual escapism and it has left us floating towards nowhere. It is time to taste the fruits of The Garden, the deepest mystical insights grounded in the fertile soil of the Jewish tradition and observance. That's real Kabbalah." (See https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/160990/jewish/Is-New-Wave-Kabbalah-Authentic.htm) These are the Satanic teachings espoused by Madonna Ciccone! The Kabbalah also lends itself to combining those disjointed beliefs it contains. In a 1995 interview with New Music Express, she said, "I think we all have the same God... God (sic) is in all of us and we are all capable of being gods and goddesses. That's my brand of Catholic (sic) mysticism. Throw in some Buddhism and you've got my religion."

Madonna: Pushing Sodomite Perversion

Ciccone as "groom" kissing the hand of one of her two "brides," Christina Aguilera, while the other, Britney Spears, looks on at left, during the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards featuring this mock "lesbian wedding." 

 Madonna is a strong supporter of sodomites. She experiments with lesbianism and stated, "Straight men need to be emasculated....Every straight guy should have a man's tongue in his mouth at least once." (See New Music Express, May 1991). In 2003, during the MTV Video Music Awards, Ciccone staged a lesbian "wedding" with pop stars Britney Spears, and Christine Aguilera. 

The MTV event was set up as a mock lesbian wedding. There was a "wedding chapel" in the set. Madonna was dressed as the "butch" (masculine) lesbian, as she was in a tuxedo with a top hat.  Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera were in the role as the more feminine (or "lipstick lesbians"). As Madonna stood at the top of a staircase waiting to walk down the isle to Britney and Christina, the traditional wedding march began to play. After they met at the end of the isle and danced, they kissed one another to bring a finale to the "wedding." Together they sang at the end of the song that they are tired of the "concept of right and wrong."  Madonna is aware that she is promoting homosexuality to millions of impressionable young people. 

In an interview with the sodomite-pervert rag, The Advocate, Ciccone stated, "They digest it [homosexual acts] on a lot of different levels. Some people will see it and be disgusted by it, but maybe they’ll be unconsciously aroused by it. If people keep seeing it and seeing it and seeing it, eventually it’s not going to be such a strange thing" (The Advocate, May 7, 1991, pg.49). The agenda has worked, as most of the world, 27 years later, accepts "sodomite marriage," which was unthinkable in 1991.

Her album Erotica is dedicated to sodomites who died from AIDS. She has said, "I believe in freedom of expression, I don't believe in censorship. I believe in equal rights for all people. And I believe women should own their sexuality and sexual expression. I don't believe there's a certain age where you can't say and feel and be who you want to be. All you have to do is look at my career—from my Sex book to the songs I've written, kissing a black saint [Bl. Martin de Porres--I do not call him "St." as he was "canonized" by Roncalli in 1962--Introibo] in my "Like a Prayer" video, the themes I explored on my Erotica album. As I get older and I get better at writing and expressing myself, then you get into my American Life era, and I start talking about politics and government and how f**ked our country's politics are, and the illusion of fame and Hollywood and the beautiful people." (See https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a19761/madonna-interview; Vulgarity censored by me).

Madonna: Songs from Hell

• Her song Like A Prayer, was inspired by the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation. The words have "transformation power" and she wanted the lyrics to "transform" her listeners. The song has several veiled references to oral sex ("I'm down on my knees, I want to take you there"). The video features her with a "stigmata" and kissing Bl. Martin de Porres in Church when his statue comes to life.

• The song Beautiful Stranger is an ode to Satan:

Haven't we met

You're some kind of beautiful stranger

You could be good for me

I've had the taste for danger

If I'm smart then I'll run away

But I'm not so I guess I'll stay

Heaven forbid

I'll take my chance on a beautiful stranger

I looked into your eyes

And my world came tumbling down

You're the devil in disguise

That's why I'm singing this song(Emphasis mine)

• The song Crazy For You is about anonymous sexual hook-ups among strangers

Swaying room as the music starts

Strangers making the most of the dark

Two by two their bodies become one

I see you through the smokey air

Can't you feel the weight of my stare

You're so close but still a world away

What I'm dying to say, is that

I'm crazy for you

Touch me once and you'll know it's true

I never wanted anyone like this

It's all brand new, you'll feel it in my kiss

I'm crazy for you, crazy for you (Emphasis mine)

• She attacks the Bible by replacing the words of Justify My Love (full of perverted sex in the video) with quotes from the Book of the Apocalypse. She calls it the "Beast Within Mix" (The "beast" of the Apocalypse is the Antichrist). 

Conclusion

Ciccone takes the words "perverted," blasphemous," and "depraved," to a whole new (low) level. This woman, baptized in the One True Church, does all she can to denounce Her while promoting evil and debauchery. I used to wince seeing teen girls in the mid-1980s dressing up to look like that piece of trash. All we can do is warn people to stay away from her music. Pray to the real Madonna, Mother of God, to convert Ciccone. Unless there's a miracle of grace she'll be in Hell, and she says-- to borrow a line from one of her Satanic songs-- "I'll take you there." 

Stretching The Truth

 This blog reported in 2017 that Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) participated in--and continues to promote--pagan "life-force channeling", known as Reiki. He had consulted with, and used, a pagan Taoist monk named Liu Ming (See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/12/francis-and-dark-side-of-force.html). I was castigated in the comments by a Vatican II sect apologist who claimed that I "inferred things," and that Traditionalists "spin everything" against the false pope. Not only have later developments proven me correct, but now His Wickedness is openly involved with yoga and transcendental meditation ("TM").  The Vatican II sect openly promotes yoga, and earlier this year, the Modernist Vatican held a Conference to "unite people without prejudice to stimulate an open dialogue and catalyze an interdisciplinary approach to tackle major health care challenges around the globe." (Remember when the Vatican had a real pope and they were concerned for the health and salvation of souls?).

 Not only did Bergoglio invite the scum of the Earth ( pro-abortion and pro-sodomite former U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden), but he invited Satanic pop-star Katy Perry to talk about TM, and former physician turned occult guru Deepak Chopra to deliver an address. This post will expose the evil embodied in Perry and Chopra, as well as the inherently occult practices of yoga and TM.

Katy Perry

 Katy Perry is an example of perversity on parade. Born Katheryn Hudson on October 25, 1984, she is seen as wholesome because her father was a Pentecostal minister and she grew up on Gospel music. Her first album was Christian music. Then, she claims in an interview, "When I was 15, because I grew up in a household where all I ever did was listen to gospel music…. I swear I wanted to be, like, the Amy Grant of music, but it didn’t work out, and so I sold my soul to the devil."

Her first big hit after selling her soul was I Kissed a Girl, which is about a lesbian encounter.  Later her own father would break down in tears over her choice to serve Satan.  He would later acknowledge, as she did earlier, that Perry is doing Satan’s work, exclaiming, “My girl Katy Perry is a devil child.”  He stated, "I was at a concert of Katy’s where there were 20,000. I’m watching this generation, and they were going at it. It was almost like church,” Keith said. “I stood there and wept and kept on weeping and weeping. They’re loving and worshiping the wrong thing.” (See http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/4911473/katy-perry-preacher-father-in-devil-child-rant.html).

Perry received the Human Rights Campaign’s "National Equality Award" for her "LGBT" sodomite-perversion activism in March 2017. "Truth be told, I did more than that," Perry proclaimed as she discussed her song I Kissed a Girl after getting the award. (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBjN4DgDLCc). She told Glamour Magazine she would re-write the 2008 pro-lesbian song to make it even more perverse, "We've really changed, conversationally, in the past 10 years...We've come a long way. Bisexuality wasn't as talked about back then, or any type of fluidity. If I had to write that song again, I probably would make an edit on it. Lyrically, it has a couple of stereotypes in it. Your mind changes so much in 10 years, and you grow so much. What's true for you can evolve."(See https://www.glamour.com/story/katy-perry-would-rewrite-i-kissed-a-girl-video).

An ardent supporter of murdering unborn children, Perry donated $10,000 to Planned Parenthood. In the video "Bon Appétit," Perry is cooked by chefs and offered as a meal to a party of elite guests as the main course. The video ends with Perry about to eat a pie containing body parts of the guests. It is a gruesome tribute to cannibalism, another occult/pagan practice. Katy Perry was invited to speak on the topic of TM; more on that below.

Deepak Chopra

 Born in India (1946), Deepak Chopra completed studies in medicine before coming to the United States to complete his residencies in Internal Medicine and Endocrinology. In 1985, he became involved in the TM movement, studying directly under Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (d. 2008), the founder of the movement. He left medicine to promote occult/New Age alternative medicine and began writing books. After appearing on Oprah in 1993, his career took off. He has written extensively (approx. 50 books), including yoga and meditation. 

His 2008 book, The Third Jesus, exposes his false and blasphemous teachings. He tells us the "first Jesus" is the historical Christ Who is fictitious and Whom we must leave behind. The "second Jesus"  is comprised of interpretations of both Biblical sayings of Christ, and false sayings from the Gnostic gospels which are false and uninspired writings. The "third Jesus" is (no surprise) a New Age guru because, he tells us, Christianity has not only failed to help people follow Christ, it has created a false Christ who keeps Jesus’ true intentions hidden.

What is this "New Age Christ" like? Some of his traits:

• Jesus is a spiritually advanced being who provides an example for us to achieve our own "spiritual evolution." He is often compared to, or paired with, Buddha. Thus, Chopra insists, "the Christian seeker who wants to reach God is no different from the Buddhist. Both are directed into their own consciousness" (Third Jesus, 87).

• Jesus death on the cross and his Resurrection are of little or no importance. Thus, a significant part of the Gospels (roughly a quarter of those texts) is simply ignored or dismissed as unimportant.

• Extra-biblical documents, especially Gnostic texts, are used and regarded as authentic sources for the life of Jesus.

• Bible passages are given esoteric interpretations that contradict orthodox understandings, as well as historical facts.

What is are pagans/occultists doing with Bergoglio? Pushing TM and yoga!

Yoga and TM

 Millions of Americans (and countless millions more worldwide) practice yoga. Vatican II sect churches promote it, and conduct classes on their property. Yoga is perceived by most people to simply be another form of exercise. Many fool themselves into thinking that you can adopt the physical aspects of yoga divorced from its religious roots. This is simply false. It can be said that there is no Hinduism without yoga and no yoga without Hinduism. Yoga influences and has been influenced by Buddhism and Jainism; that's three pagan religions. These facts strongly suggest that yoga is primarily spiritual in nature, which is the explicit understanding of its Eastern practitioners, and many Western devotees. 

Yoga is synonymous with Eastern meditation and pantheism, the idea that reality is identical with Divinity, and that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent "god." The goal of the yoga practitioner is to unify himself/herself with the "Divine-self" or "God-Self." Through yoga meditation, the person tries to lose contact with the conscious mind for an altered state of consciousness. This disassociation is meant to allow a person to become "one" with "the Divine." Even those who do not get to such altered states, have unwittingly opened themselves up to a decidedly pagan worldview and possible demon possession. The idea of being "divine" is the opposite of Christianity which tells us we are sinners in need of Redemption by the God-Man Jesus Christ.

When yoga techniques are labeled as "relaxation techniques" or "ways to reduce stress," it is misleading. Traditionalist Catholic meditation is the conscious, focused, reflective, cognitive attention to God, such as when one meditates on the mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary. Yoga meditation results in an altered state of consciousness; really a form of self-hypnosis. 

The issue still needs to be addressed if yoga can be separated from its pagan aspects and just be used as exercise. Experts in yoga seem to agree that you cannot do so. Swami Prabhupada  states, "Yoga is full of surprises. The first surprise was that it is not simply exercise. Yoga is a moving meditation, a system for developing the mind, the body, and the spirit in unison. This holistic approach makes yoga feel different from Western sports training." (See A.C. Bhaktivendanta Swami Prabhupada, The Quest for Enlightenment, Bhaktivendanta Book Trust , Los Angeles, [1977], pg. 3)

Transcendental Meditation (TM) is a veiled form of Hindu yoga, though it claims to be a religiously neutral method of relaxation and rejuvenation. Initiates to TM receive a mantra (Hindu holy word) to repeat while sitting in yogic postures and engaging in yogic breathing. The goal is to find God within their own beings, since God (Brahman) and the self (Atman) are really one. In the 1960's Maharishi Mahesh Yogi came to the United States, which was then torn by race riots, drug abuse and a rapidly deteriorating youth scene. He began to lecture on the merits of TM as a "scientific" answer to all spiritual and mental ills of humanity. Immediately, he was hailed a "savior" who was bringing the exact answer at the right time. Yoga nad TM caught on. When he died in 2008, his foundation for TM in the U.S. was worth an estimated $300 million. 

In 1989, the Modernist Vatican, under Wojtyla, issued a "Letter to the Bishops (sic) of the Catholic (sic) Church on Some Aspects of Meditation." It came from The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (sic) under Ratzinger, and in para. #12 we read:

"With the present diffusion of eastern methods of meditation in the Christian world and in ecclesial communities, we find ourselves faced with a pointed renewal of an attempt, which is not free from dangers and errors, to fuse Christian meditation with that which is non-Christian... These and similar proposals to harmonize Christian meditation with eastern techniques need to have their contents and methods ever subjected to a thorough-going examination so as to avoid the danger of falling into syncretism." 

A "danger of falling into syncretism"? Too late. Syncretism, or the attempt to fuse together different belief systems, already took place at Vatican II. The term "ecclesial communities" belies the false ecclesiology of Vatican II where all religions are more or less good. As stated in the heretical document Nostra Aetate, "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...The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men." (para. #2). 

Furthermore, how does something innately pagan get "subjected to a thorough-going examination"? What does that even mean? Telling people yoga and its Eastern meditation (TM) are in any way "Christian" is more than "stretching the truth," it's an outright lie.

Conclusion

 How will "Recognize and Resistors" (R&R) and Vatican II sect apologists spin this one? Bergoglio invited pro-abortion, and pro-sodomite occultists to the Vatican. They were there in order to promote pagan yoga and TM which open people to demonic forces and advances a pagan worldview. Can anyone with a straight face say, "He didn't know?" A couple of years ago, Frankie said that yoga "has no answers." However, his actions speak louder than his nebulous words. Bergoglio is no pope. No Vicar of Christ would do this; he is advancing the revolution of Vatican II. That revolution wants a world devoid of Christ and His One True Church. 

Sacramentals

 In this time of the Great Apostasy, there are many Traditionalists who are not fully aware (or who have false beliefs) regarding a great source of graces; the sacramentals. The word sacramental first appeared in the 12th century, and was used by theologians of the time in a very general sense. The devout pronunciation of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, and giving alms to the poor were considered "sacramentals." The same designation was given to the conferring of the white garment in Baptism, which was later called by the proper title of a ceremony.

All theologians since the time of the Council of Trent use the term sacramentals to designate a class of sacred things, instituted by Christ's One True Church, that are, in some respects, similar to the Sacraments. The Church has given Her official approval by defining sacramentals in Her Code of Canon Law: "Things or actions which the Church is accustomed to use somewhat after the manner of Sacraments, to obtain by Her prayer, effects, especially of the spiritual order." (See 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1144).

The Modernists and Protestants deride sacramentals as "superstition" as they eschew not only the miraculous, but much (if not most) of the supernatural order. On the other end, there are some Traditionalists who actually do make the sacramentals into something superstitious by ascribing to them powers they do not possess. The pseudo-Traditionalist Dimond brothers actually used to tell people that it was impossible to go to Hell if you died wearing the Brown Scapular! They eventually recanted such a ridiculous position. The purpose of this post is to give the authentic teaching of the Church on sacramentals. All the information is condensed and from, and credited to, theologian Connell in his most informative work The Sacramentals, The Paulist Press, [1930].

The Difference Between a Sacrament and a Sacramental

  The Sacraments are exactly seven in number and were all instituted by the historical Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of the human race (although all seven Sacraments are not necessary for each individual). The sacramentals are numerous, and have no limit since they are of Ecclesiastical institution. Only the Holy See may institute a sacramental (Canon 1145). The manner in which sacramentals confer grace is markedly different as well. Sacraments confer graces ex opere operato (i.e., loosely translated "by virtue of the action," means that the efficacy of the action of the Sacraments does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God as expressed by Christ's institution and promise). 

 Theologians do not agree as to whether the sacramentals may confer grace ex opere operantis (i.e.,through the action of the one who uses them). Those who hold the negative opinion argue that as the Church cannot confer sanctifying grace nor institute signs thereof, neither can she institute efficacious signs of the other graces which God alone can give. The sacramentals do not infallibly produce their effect, as do the Sacraments. However, sacramentals have a special efficacy of their own. If their whole value proceeded from the the action of those who use them, all external good works could be called "sacramentals," but such is not the case. 

The special virtue recognized by the Church and experienced by Catholics in the sacramentals should consist in the official prayers whereby the Church implores God to pour forth special graces on those who make use of the sacramentals. These prayers move God to give graces which He would not otherwise give, and when not infallibly acceded to, it is for reasons known only to His Perfect Wisdom. God is aware of the measure in which He should bestow His gifts. Many theologians teach that the disposition of the person using the sacramentals can open them to receive even more graces. 

The Classification of Sacramentals

Sacramentals may be classified under three general categories: exorcisms, blessings, and blessed objects. Each will now be considered.

1. Exorcisms. An exorcism is a command, given to the devil and his demons, ordering them, in the name of God, to depart from some person, place, or thing. Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching of the Church testify conclusively that God sometimes permits the fallen angels to exercise a certain influence over the doings of humanity. This may even go so far as taking up their abode in the body of a living person, which is known as diabolical possession. When the demons hurt people from without, their activities are known as diabolical obsession.

The purpose of the Church's exorcisms is to compel Satan and his evil cohorts to desist from their malicious interference in human affairs. By employing exorcisms, the Church is acting after the example and by the authority of Her Divine Founder Jesus Christ, Who during His earthly life frequently cast out demons from possessed persons (See e.g., St. Matthew 8:28; 9:32). Christ also commissioned His Apostles, and their successors, to do the same (See St. Matthew 10:8). A considerable number of exorcisms are found in the Church's liturgical books. Some of these are for ordinary use in sacred functions, such as those used in the preparation of Holy Water. Other, most solemn exorcisms, are meant only for established cases of diabolical possession or obsession. Only priests and bishops can perform exorcisms.

One of the four Minor Orders a man receives on the way to becoming a priest, is the order of Exorcist, which constitutes him an official minister of the Church's exorcisms. This, along with the other three Minor Orders, and the Major Order of Subdeacon, were all abolished in the Vatican II sect by command of Montini ("Pope" Paul VI).

2. Blessings. A blessing is a prayer that draws down God's favor on some person or thing. The Church has established two kinds of blessings: constitutive and invocative. A constitutive blessing is one that makes a person or a thing sacred (i.e., dedicates a human being or an inanimate object in a special way to the service of God). Such are the blessing of a monk when he is raised to the office of abbot, the blessing of a Rosary, and the blessing of Holy Water. The more solemn forms are called consecrations, such as the consecration of a Church or Chapel by a Bishop.

An invocative blessing is one that obtains the Divine assistance for those on whom it is pronounced without rendering the person or thing as sacred. Such a blessing can be imparted to a person directly or indirectly. An example of a direct invocative blessing is the blessing of the throats in honor of St. Blaise on February 3rd. This does not make the person or his throat sacred, but asks Divine protection against ailments of the throat. An example of an indirect invocative blessing is the blessing of a house, which does not make the house sacred, but invokes God's favor on those who dwell within it.

Holy Mother Church has a maternal interest in all facets of our lives which is why we find so many and diverse blessings in the Rituale Romanum, the book which prescribes all the rites for the Sacraments and sacramentals. The ordinary minister of blessings is a priest, but for consecrations, a bishop is usually necessary. Making the sign of the cross, one of the oldest and most efficacious blessings, can be bestowed upon anyone who does it devoutly to himself/herself.

3. Blessed Objects. The third category of sacramentals comprises objects that have been blessed with a constitutive blessing. This includes Holy Water, Rosaries, scapulars, statues, medals, pictures, oils, cords, and the like. An object that receives a constitutive remains sacred until it has been destroyed or substantially altered. Thus a Church or Chapel is no longer consecrated if the greater portion of the walls collapse. A blessed candle's drippings are not sacred, nor is a chalice that has been melted down.

To be beneficial as a sacramental, the blessed object must be used devoutly and not for secular purposes. There is no merit bestowed on one who wears a crucifix merely as an ornament, or hangs up a blessed picture due to its aesthetic value.  In case of necessity one can used a sacred object for a profane use, e.g., to use blessed candles during a blackout if no regular candles are available. However, to use such candles for decorative purposes while dining would be a sin of sacrilege.

Besides possessing value as sacramentals, blessed objects are often enriched with indulgences. The indulgences attach whenever the object has been properly blessed according to the Rituale Romanum by a validly ordained priest. One interesting exception are scapulars. Once a person has been duly enrolled by a priest in the five-fold scapular, any subsequent scapular need not be blessed (five-fold, or any of the individual scapulars that comprise it). Merely be wearing it, the enrolled person makes the scapular efficacious.

How Sacramentals Work

 The sacramentals cannot impart graces directly to the souls of people. That power is only to be found in the Sacraments. The sacramentals produce their effects indirectly through (a) the disposition of the recipient, and (b) through the prayers of the Church. By making pious use of sacramentals, a person animates himself with pious sentiments. For example, by gazing on the crucifix, we can bring forth sentiments of love for God and sorrow for sin. By virtue of these sentiments, we can render ourselves worthy to receive from God some favor in the spiritual or material order. 

The sacramentals possess  special efficacy from the prayers of the Church. The One True Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is ever pleasing in the sight of God. Consequently, the prayers and good works of the Church as a perfect society are most powerful to obtain Divine favors. In establishing the sacramentals, the Church promises to join Her own prayers and the intercessory value of Her good works to the dispositions of those who devoutly employ these sacred things and actions. Thus, whenever a person devoutly uses a sacramental, the most pleasing prayers of the Church are directed to God for him or her, and that is what gives sacramentals their special spiritual value. 

The Effects of the Sacramentals

 There are five (5) chief effects of the sacramentals:

1. The dedication of a person or a thing to God. This effect is produced by constitutive blessings and consecrations.

2. The repression of evil spirits. This is particularly true of exorcisms; but it is also produced by other sacramentals, most notably, the sign of the cross, Holy Water, the St. Benedict Medal, and the St. Benedict Crucifix-Medal.

3. Actual graces. In consideration of the disposition of the person, and especially because of the prayers of the Church attached to its use, God imparts to the user actual graces, whereby he is empowered and urged to perform supernatural acts of virtue. Unlike the Sacraments, the sacramentals have not the power of conferring sanctifying grace. However, sacramentals can lead to the attainment of sanctifying grace. If a sinner prays the Rosary devoutly, he may receive an actual grace which enables him to make an act of perfect contrition, and thereby merits sanctifying grace. The actual graces may also prevent someone from losing sanctifying grace through mortal sin.

4. The remission of venial sin and of the temporal punishment due to sin. By the devout use of sacramentals, a person is led to perform acts of virtue that contain, at least implicitly, a detestation of his minor transgressions. Through these acts, the person obtains from God the remission of these sins, and also a remission of some portion of the temporal punishment due to them. 

5. Temporal favors. The primary end of the sacramentals is the spiritual health of the soul. Nevertheless, it is lawful to use sacramentals for temporal favors such as good health and success in business, etc. 

Those for Whom the Sacramentals are Intended

 The Church has established the sacramentals for Her members, first and foremost. To receive the full measure of of their effects the Traditionalists who use them should be in the state of sanctifying grace. However, those not in the state of grace may use sacramentals with profit as it may turn the sinner away from sin and to God's friendship once more. 

In Her zeal for saving souls, the Church extends the use of sacramentals to those outside the Church (unless there is a positive prohibition to the contrary). Hence, blessings and exorcisms may be used on non-Catholics. In giving Her blessings to non-Catholics, the Church prays most especially that they may enter the One True Church. (See Canons 1149, 1152). 

The Church excludes from the benefit of sacramentals those who are excommunicated and under the ecclesiastical censure known as personal interdict. Also excluded are those who, without the necessary and proper dispensation, and conscious of their sin, have contracted a mixed marriage (See Canons 2260, 2275, and 2375). Only exorcisms may be pronounced over those excommunicated (See Canon 1152). 

Conclusion

In using sacramentals, two extremes are to be avoided. On the one hand, no one should despise them as something superstitious or intended for use by "ignorant people" as the Modernists hold. On the other hand, people must not view them as endowed with miraculous power or having infallible powers against temporal evils. The primary purpose of sacramentals is spiritual, not temporal. Hence, one who has received the St. Blaise blessing may die from a disease of the throat. One wearing the scapular may drown. Neither the scapular, nor any other sacramental will save you from Hell if you are in unrepentant mortal sin, or die as a non-Traditionalist Catholic. 

In this time of the Great Apostasy, make use of all the sacramentals you can: the Rosary, the five-fold scapular, statues, St. Benedict Crucifix-Medal, the Cord of St. Joseph, the Cord of St. Philomena, medals of your patron saint, Holy Water, St. Joseph oil, the Green Scapular, etc. However, let them be incentives to piety, and do not deceive yourself that you can live as you please and expect God's grace. To quote from the Second Council of Baltimore in 1866: "Let them especially reprehend those who use these sacred things [sacramentals] like charms, such as the heathens have, to preserve them from the wrath of God even when they are sunk in the mire of the most hideous vices."  

Intent On Causing Harm

 The Traditionalist bugbear that everyone of the faithful will hear at some point, is that Masonic clergy or an "unstable" prelate within the Catholic Church, lacked the proper intention to confer Holy Orders when they ordained/consecrated priests and bishops to continue the True Church after the Great Apostasy of Vatican II. The logical result is that any Traditionalist priests who were ordained by these bishops, or by other bishops who derive their episcopal orders from them, are dubious and must be avoided. Your only choice is to be a Home Aloner or find some elderly priest ordained pre-1968. All Traditionalist priests come from one of three episcopal lineages: (1) Archbishop Peter Thuc, (2) Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and (3) Bishop Alfred Mendez.

 The enemies of the Faith calumniate each of them. Abp. Thuc and Bp. Mendez (so we are told) were either senile or "unbalanced" and couldn't have had the proper intention for a valid conferral of a sacrament. Abp. Lefebvre was ordained and consecrated by an alleged Mason who supposedly withheld his intention on purpose to destroy the Church, which resulted in the Archbishop remaining as a mere deacon. Recently, I saw a website putting quotations around all Traditionalist clergy titles (e.g., "Fr."). I have dealt with the issue of Archbishop Lefebvre before; See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/05/doubting-yourself-in-extreme.html; see also http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/08/sophistry-on-steroids.html.

 In this post, I will try to deal concisely with the objection to lack of intent. Once Church teaching has been set forth, the case against Traditionalist orders on such specious grounds will melt away.

The Requirements for a Valid Sacrament

A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the human race; however, not all sacraments are necessary for each individual.

 There are four indispensable requirements to confect (i.e. "make") a valid sacrament: proper administer who uses proper matter, form, and has the intention to do what the Church does. The administer (or "minister") must be the person who can perform the sacrament (e.g., a priest for Penance and a bishop for Holy Orders). The matter is the sensible sign that must be used (e.g. bread and wine at Mass). The form is the necessary words that must be used by the minister of the sacrament as he applies the matter (e.g., saying "THIS IS MY BODY" over the bread at Mass). Finally, the minister must intend to do what the Church does while applying the matter and form. (See theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, 8:59-60). 

Self-styled "theologians" call into question the last requirement: the intention to do what the Church does.

What Constitutes A Proper Intention?

 Why must the minister of a sacrament have an intention? God will not force anyone to do something. The minister of a sacrament must have free will, and therefore be able to perform a rational, human act. According to theologian Ott, "The human minister is a creature endowed with reason and freedom. The act involved in the execution of the administration of the Sacrament must therefore be an actus humanus [human act], that is, an activity which proceeds from understanding and free will."(See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 343). Again, theologian Davis teaches, "That he [the minister of a sacrament] must have some intention is clear from the fact that he is to act as a rational agent, and to act rationally some intention is necessary" (See Moral and Pastoral Theology, 3:16; words in brackets mine). 

To be valid, a virtual intention is at minimum necessary. According to theologian Davis, "... virtual intention suffices, for this suffices for a human act, and therefore for the sacramental act." (See Moral and Pastoral Theology, 3:17). According to theologian Ott, a virtual intention is "that disposition of the will, which is conceived before the action and which continues virtually during the action." (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pgs. 343-344). In simple terms, it means that we can perform an intended act while being distracted. When I drive to work, I intend to drive, but I'm distracted by a phone call from a client on my bluetooth. I don't specifically remember all the details of driving, but it was a human act of a rational agent who wanted to drive but was distracted while continuing to (and wanting to) drive.

Theologian Davis comments as follows:
Some attention is necessary in conferring the Sacraments as in every human act. In internal attention, there is usually full advertence to what one does. So much is, obviously, not necessary, for we do many things and act in a human way without this advertence. A lesser degree of attention is therefore sufficient and this is called external attention, which, though internal in itself, is very vague, but is sufficient to carry us through a human act, provided we do nothing that is incompatible with a full internal attention if it were suddenly required. It would be an error to call this act purely automatic. Such external attention is present when one assists at Mass without conscious advertence to what is going on, but at the same time without engrossing the mind with things that are not compatible with true attention to Mass. It is possible, for example, to recite the Rosary and attend to Mass; it is not possible to concentrate the mind on an abstruse mathematical problem and at the same time to attend to Mass. This kind of external attention, as it is called, is sufficient in prayer, in reciting the divine office, in hearing Mass, in receiving the Sacraments, and in conferring them. It is not necessary, therefore, to have actual attention to what is being done in conferring the Sacraments, but as some attention is necessary in every human act, the most that can be required is that amount and degree of advertence to what we do which is not incompatible with what we do.(See Moral and Pastoral Theology, 3:20).

 What must the administer intend, exactly? You must intend to do what the Church does, not intend to do what the Church intends. According to theologian Ott, "The minister... does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the Sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite. It suffices if he have the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians [i.e., Catholics]. (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 344; word in parenthesis mine).

The Presumption of Validity

 There is a rebuttable presumption (praesumptio juris tantum) that every time a Catholic cleric seriously undertakes to perform a sacrament it is done validly. It is presumed that the correct matter, form, and intention were all present. Pope Leo XIII clearly teaches:

"A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does." (Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae [1896]).

According to theologian DeSalvo, "As long as the lack of proper intention is not externally manifested, the Church presumes that the intention of the minister is correct." (See The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments, [1949], pg. 105).

The theologian Leeming says this passage of Pope Leo XIII above recapitulates the teachings of previous theologians who "...all agreed that the outward decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists.… The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash." (See Principles of Sacramental Theology [1956], 476, 482.).

The reason for this principle is clear: Divine Providence will prevent the Church from defecting. While we can never know with absolute certainty (without Divine revelation) if any particular sacrament is valid, we have moral certainty, and the assurance that the Church will continue. Each week at Mass, you don't know if the priest tampered with the bread and or wine. You don't know if he correctly pronounced (and included) all the necessary words of Consecration. He could have done such things, but it is never to be presumed. On moral certainty, the Church allows us to adore that which looks as mere bread as Jesus Christ Himself.

The reason for this presumption is spelled out by theologian Courtemanche, "...it would be monstrous for the law to presume that what the mouth speaks is not in the heart, since that would be tantamount to presuming the presence of a lie." (See The Total Simulation of Matrimonial Consent, [1948], pg. 41).

Application of the Foregoing Principles to Abp. Thuc and Bp. Mendez

 The majority of Traditionalist clergy come from Archbishop Peter Thuc (1897-1984), the former Archbishop of Hue, South Vietnam. The clergy of the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), derive their episcopal orders from Bishop Alfred Mendez (1907-1995), the former Bishop of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Both were in advanced age when they consecrated the bishops for Traditionalists. Abp. Thuc turned 84 in 1981 when he consecrated Bishops Guerard des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora. Bishop Mendez was 86 when he consecrated Bishop Clarence Kelly for the SSPV, and the bishop had recently recovered from a stroke. 

The first accusation against them both is that they were senile, and didn't understand what they were doing. Furthermore, Abp. Thuc had consecrated the "seers" of the phony Palmar de Troya fiasco in Spain back in 1976. Naturally, only someone "crazy" would do such a thing. It has been alleged that Bp. Mendez did some strange things--like claim that he was wearing lay clothes because "the mob was after him." He too, therefore, is "crazy."

As we have seen, the Church sets a low bar, not a high one, in what is necessary for a sacramental intention. In order for the consecrations to be declared invalid due to senility, it would mean that Bps. Thuc and Mendez were so "out of it" that they didn't know what they were doing, and had no intention to do it while performing an episcopal consecration. There are numerous photos and witnesses that attest to the fact that both bishops were able to navigate the difficult, hours-long consecration ceremony and were able to pose for pictures. These are hardly the actions of someone who has tragically gone the way of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who had no idea who he even was towards the end of his life.

Abp. Thuc during the complex consecration ceremony of the great Dominican theologian M.  Guerard des Lauriers

Magazine put out by SSPV showing Bp Mendez sitting next to the newly consecrated Bp. Kelly. Inside are several up close pictures of the bishop consecrating Clarence Kelly with the assisting priests.

As to charges of insanity, in the case of Abp. Thuc, it was the SSPX that suggested to someone involved with the "seers" to ask Abp. Thuc to come and check out the alleged apparitions. The fact that Abp. Lefebvre did not dismiss it, and that Abp. Thuc wanted the Great Apostasy to end, can easily account for why he did something rash and foolish. Being "rash and foolish" does not equate to insanity. A proper medical authority would have to certify someone as habitually insane or suffering dementia in order to overcome a presumption of proper intention. That was never done. Abp. Thuc, going back and forth to the Modernist Vatican, makes him fickle in a time of complete confusion, not insane or unable to maintain the minimum intention for a valid sacrament.

The remark by Bp. Mendez about the mob following him, takes on a whole new meaning when put in proper context. He was not as brave as a prelate should be. He would not come out publicly for the faith as did Bishop Kurz, or Abp. Lefebvre. Therefore, he would often wear street clothes when with the SSPV. When someone asked him why he wasn't wearing his clerical garb, he responded, "The mob is out to get me, and I don't want them to find me." It was sarcastic humor, not insanity, that engendered the remark.

Masons and "I've Got A Bad Feeling About This"

 There is one more serious charge that needs to be answered. Since I wrote about it before at length (see my two posts cited at the beginning of this post), I will be brief. No one (to the best of my knowledge and belief) calls into question the mental state of Archbishop Lefebvre. However, the Cardinal-Bishop who ordained him a priest, and later consecrated him a bishop, Archille Lienart, was a Freemason. The evidence for his Masonic membership is hardly conclusive, but ad aguendo, I will concede he was a Mason. 

 There are those who assert that since Masons are the sworn enemies of the Church, Masonic clerics must withhold their intention and make the sacraments invalid. To demonstrate someone has withheld the proper intention, "...one must prove the existence of a positive will that excludes [the sacrament]." (See  Courtemanche, The Total Simulation of Matrimonial Consent, [1948], pg. 18). Such was the case in South America of a bishop who was strongly prejudiced against ordaining native [pueblo nativos] clergy. On his deathbed he confessed that he withheld his intention on those natives. The priest refused absolution unless the bishop agreed and gave permission for this to be told to the proper authorities. The native priests were re-ordained but NOT non-native priests. "The Church, recognizing that She can never know the internal intention of the minister, assumes it is the same as his external intention (the intention which the traditional rite provides by its very wording), unless he himself informs the Church otherwise." (See Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Sacraments, pg. 11 and footnote 19; words in parenthesis in original). 

 It is an established fact that Cardinal Rampolla was a high ranking Freemason. None of his consecrations or ordinations were repeated. There were bishops consecrated during the French Revolution by Masonic bishops, and they were received back as bishops, not subject to absolute or conditional consecration. The Church considers them all valid. Roncalli ("Pope" John XIII) was most probably a Freemason, yet the priests and bishops that derive their orders from him (including Cardinal Ottaviani) are not called into question. 

Those who assert Masons withhold their intention (have a "positive contrary intention" by willing "I do not intend to ordain [or consecrate] this man" while performing the ceremony) are setting up an opposite presumption from the Church, i.e., your sacraments are invalid, unless proven otherwise.If the Church tells us we must presume validity, we must do so. There is no "Masonic exception" to the rule. Remember that there is a possibility that any sacrament could be invalid, but we must not fear it because we have moral certainty. If Masonic membership makes sacraments doubtful, what about Modernists and Communists? They are the sworn enemies of the Church as well, yet we would have to consider virtually every sacrament invalid based on Modernism! (The number of Modernists who came out at Vatican II was staggering).  

The objection to such bishops is not based on theology and the practice of the Church, but rather, "I've got a bad feeling about this situation." That does not suffice. Notice that even the bishop who admitted to withholding his intention on native clergy, did not state he did have the intention for non-native clergy. Did the Church ordain all of the priests "just to be safe"? No! It was presumed valid. 

Conclusion

The renewed attacks on Traditionalist clergy orders are unfounded. Traditional Catholic theology tells us we have no reason to doubt the orders that derive from Abp. Thuc, Abp. Lefebvre, and Bp. Mendez. For those who would like to read more about the consecrations of Abp. Thuc in-depth, please go to the 101 page tome written by Mr. Mario Derksen at thucbishops.com. He quotes many of the same theologians as I do in this post, but goes into much greater (and better) detail, with many more citations to relevant sources. 

Finally, I would like to end with this quote from theologian DeSalvo, "Christ promised that He would be with His Church until the end of the world. Although men cannot be metaphysically certain of having received the sacraments, all may, according to common sense, depend upon the fidelity of Christ's ministers in the administration of the sacraments, and according to faith rely upon the Indefectibility of the Church and her ministers as a body." (See The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments, [1949], pg. 106).