Should Traditionalists Celebrate "Resurrection Sunday"?

 This past Easter, an old friend of mine whom I don't see very often, emailed me. "Rob" (not his real name) is a great father, husband, and friend. He was baptized and raised in the Vatican II sect (b. 1968), but a few years ago became a Protestant. He wished my family and me a "Happy Resurrection Sunday." I replied back, "I pray for your family and you--and always wish you the best. Don't you mean 'Happy Easter'? What's with 'Resurrection Sunday?" He responded, "Resurrection Sunday is for Christians. 'Easter' is of pagan origin, and we shouldn't be using that word." Many atheists make the same claim, and many churches now proclaim "Resurrection Sunday." Rob and I have had a great many theological discussions as I try to show him the way to the One True Church. I have great hope for him. He was correct, insofar as my subsequent research showed many atheists making this assertion about "Easter" and many Protestant sects adopting the name "Resurrection Sunday." In this post, the controversy surrounding Easter shall be examined.

Richard Dawkins: Frequently Wrong, But Never In Doubt

 One of the so-called "New Atheists," Dr. Richard Dawkins, is blinded by his hatred of God. This meme appeared on his so-called  "Foundation for Reason and Science " Facebook page a couple of years back, and I believe that this is where the idea of jettisoning the word "Easter" got much of its its traction among many Protestants. For an educated man (biology professor by profession), proclaiming himself the epitome of "reason and science," his meme is but little more than an emotional attack on the God he hates. He's not merely an atheist, but an anti-theist (one who wants God stamped out of society). The basic gist of Dawkins' mindless attack is that Christian doctrines are just "myths" borrowed from pagan culture. If he did even minimal research, he would see that his contention is totally wrong. 

1. Ishtar is pronounced "Easter." There is not one credible linguistic source I could find to support this assertion. It is pronounced "ISH-tar" not "EAST-er." According to historian Anthony McRoy: "The argument largely rests on the supposed pagan associations of the English and German names for the celebration (Easter in English and Ostern in German). It is important to note, however, that in most other European languages, the name for the Christian celebration is derived from the Greek word Pascha, which comes from pesach, the Hebrew word for Passover. Easter is the Christian Passover festival.

Of course, even if Christians did engage in contextualization—expressing their message and worship in the language or forms of the local people—that in no way implies doctrinal compromise. Christians around the world have sought to redeem the local culture for Christ while purging it of practices antithetical to biblical norms."  McRoy then puts things in context, since the Church celebrates "Maundy Thursday" and "Good Friday" and "Holy Saturday." The names of the days of the week all derive from pagan origin; Thursday for the Norse pagan "god" Thor, Friday for the Germanic pagan "goddess" Freya, and Saturday for the Roman pagan "god" Saturn. Does the use of these names denigrate the True God, or imply we honor these false deities? Does it render the historical Last Supper, Crucifixion, and Vigil of the Resurrection "pagan"? This is a classic case of "guilt by association."

McRoy further assets that there are two theories as to the origin for Easter among historians. "One theory for the origin of the name is that the Latin phrase in albis ('in white'), which Christians used in reference to Easter week, found its way into Old High German as eostarum, or 'dawn.'" The other is that "Eosturmonath simply meant 'the month of opening,' which is comparable to the meaning of 'April' in Latin. The names of both the Saxon and Latin months (which are calendrically similar) were related to spring, the season when the buds open." (See https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2009/april/was-easter-borrowed-from-pagan-holiday.html).

2. Easter is originally the celebration of Ishtar, the Assyrian and Babylonian goddess of fertility and sex.

Ishtar was associated with fertility and sex.  Easter is always celebrated near the Feast of Passover, when it took place. The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) set the formula for calculating the date. (The Eastern Schismatics use a different calculation, and usually celebrate Easter a week later than Catholics and Protestants). In short, Easter has everything to do with Passover (when it took place) and nothing to do with the pagan deity Ishtar.

3.  Her symbols (like the egg and the bunny) were and still are fertility and sex symbols (or did you actually think eggs and bunnies had anything to do with the resurrection?)

I don't get upset when people disagree with me, but I can't help getting angry when they attack a straw-man and claim that you're wrong. So far, there is no credible evidence that the word "Easter" derives from "Ishtar." Second, Christianity has retained some vestiges from pagan times, such as the names of the days of the week, but do not thereby celebrate the pagan gods and goddesses after which they were named.Therefore, to claim "Easter" is "making pagan" the Resurrection is fallacious "guilt by association." Third, Easter is celebrated in the spring because the events took place on Passover, not because of some alleged connection to Ishtar.  Score thus far: Dawkins 0, Christianity 3.

As to the next ridiculous assertion, Ishtar's symbols were the lion, the gate and the eight-pointed star; I can’t find any evidence of eggs or rabbits symbolically belonging to this pagan deity. (See, e.g., https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ishtar-Mesopotamian-goddess; there is no mention of rabbits or eggs). Admittedly, most of the popular associations with Easter do come from pagan traditions rather than Christian. However, traditionally the Church has taken these pagan elements and "converted" them to convey Christian principles. For example, the egg is a common pagan sign of fertility, but for Catholicism, the egg is often used to signify the resurrection to new life promised us by Christ's resurrection (See 1 Corinthians 15:37-38). The Polish were prominent in making this connection: "Polish traditions taught that eggs were symbols of 'new life' and used them in church services, which represented rebirth through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hedgerow/2017/04/know-easter-eggs-lent/).

Rabbits likewise are known for being fruitful and multiplying.  Butterflies are indicators of spring, and therefore new life, and at Easter, make a great symbol of the resurrection. Just as the caterpillar "dies," is "buried" in its cocoon, and then emerges in a "new body," so too Our Lord died, was buried, and was resurrected on the third day. We who belong to Him will be resurrected also (See Romans 8:11). Hiding eggs once symbolized the mysteries of the world of the gods and goddesses, who had to be coaxed into returning life to the Earth in spring. Early members of the Church used hiding-and-finding Easter eggs as a teaching tool to children that we have been "hidden" from God’s loving presence by our sin, but we are "found" by Christ, who forgives us, loves us, and treasures us (See St. Luke 15:4-7).

4. After Constantine decided to Christianize the Empire, Easter was changed to represent Jesus.

There is no citation to any relevant historical authority to support this ludicrous claim. When Constantine was alive, English--in any known form today--didn't even exist, and the emperor spoke Latin, in which the word would be pascha. According to Merriam-Webster, "The history of English is conventionally, if perhaps too neatly, divided into three periods usually called Old English (or Anglo-Saxon), Middle English, and Modern English. The earliest period begins with the migration of certain Germanic tribes from the continent to Britain in the fifth century A.D., though no records of their language survive from before the seventh century, and it continues until the end of the eleventh century or a bit later." (See https://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq-history; Emphasis mine).

 There was no "Easter" at the time, and the celebration of Christ's Resurrection had been going on for almost 300 years.

5.  But at its roots Easter (which is pronounced Ishtar) was all about celebrating fertility and sex. 
Well, this has been shown to be demonstrably false. If I were to write something so slipshod and manifestly untrue, would you want me representing you in court? Yet, Dr. Dawkins, a professional biologist and professor, has atheists, and those with doubts about God's existence, clinging to his every word as a man of "reason and science." Even a superficial check of his alleged "facts" would expose the falsity of the claims regarding Easter. One can only conclude (a) Dawkins can't do basic research and is a pseudo-educated dolt, or (b) he purposefully lies to make Christianity look as bad as possible. I don't know which is more charitable to believe.

Modern Paganizing of Easter

Easter is not pagan, but unfortunately, even some Traditionalists make it so. When you tell your children about rabbits, egg hunts, and chocolates, but not about what they symbolize, the true meaning of Easter gets lost. That is pagan. The value of symbolism must not be lost. Historically, the celebration of Our Lord’s Resurrection is a time of joy, light, and celebration. Our churches and chapels use bright colors to decorate the sanctuary and the altar, traditionally white and gold. White represents purity and the resurrection, gold symbolizes triumph. Confidence in the Resurrection is also the historical significance of flowers (especially lilies) at Easter since they are associated with funerals.Christ has proven death is not the end of it all. I also don't believe in parents lying to children in connection to religious celebrations. Let them know the Easter Bunny is not real.

I wrote a post in January of 2017, opining how lying to children about Santa Claus is detrimental to their faith. Unlike the symbols of Easter, Santa is dangerous because--as I wrote---"People calling themselves "Christian" lie to their children about the existence of a supernatural, all-knowing being who is watching them and holding them morally accountable. This "God-surrogate" is an all-seeing person endowed with miraculous powers, who’s making a list and checking it twice in order to find out if you've been naughty or nice. "He knows when you are sleeping; he knows when you’re awake. He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good, for goodness’ sake!" Fear not, however, no matter what you’ve done, he thinks you’re good and delivers the presents. Is this caricature of God something about which you want to lie to your children?  Once they find out that you have lied to them about Santa’s existence, how can doubts not also arise that you have been lying (or wrong) as well in telling them that God exists? " (For the complete post, See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/01/secret-santa.html). 

There is no comparison with the Easter Bunny being a "God-surrogate," but you should not lie about his existence to your children or let the prospect of finding eggs and getting chocolate derogate from the true meaning of Easter.

Conclusion

 Are there similarities between certain pagan religions and Christianity? Of course there are, but it in no way implies that Christianity is just "another pagan myth" or "borrows pagan myths."  Many pagan cultures attest to a world-wide deluge. Did the Jews "borrow" this so-called myth, or since the flood really happened, is it a testament to the fact which you'd be expected to find written elsewhere? The Jehovah's Witnesses sect, is fond of claiming that since there were "trinity-like" pagan deities, then the Catholic Dogma of the Trinity must have come from pagan mythology. Interestingly, they don't deny the Biblical Flood, which if they want to be consistent they would have to reject, since it is also found in pagan mythology; yet they do not claim the Great Deluge to have come from the pagans. 

Calling Easter "Resurrection Sunday" is not theologically incorrect or heretical, but why should we give credence to the real "fairy tales" being told by the likes of Richard Dawkins? On April 21, 2019, when some well-meaning Protestant says "Happy Resurrection Sunday!"be sure to shout back, "No, I'll have a Happy Easter, and I wish the same for you!"

True And False Ecumenism

Since the Great Apostasy that was the Second Vatican [Robber] Council of 1962-1965, ecumenism has become a dirty word for those who retain the Catholic Faith. This is rightfully so, as one need only think of the Assisi abominations which took place in 1986, 1993, and 2002 (all under John Paul the Great Apostate), in 2011 (under Ratzinger), and in 2016 under Bergoglio. All the false religions of the world were invited to gather together and pray to their false gods for "peace." These religions included: Islam, Buddhism, Sikhismo, African Tribal "Witch Doctors," Hinduism, Tenriko, Shintoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, and Confucianism. The problems with such a meeting is manifold as it teaches several heresies:

• God hears the prayers of false religions
• There is no difference between the God of Catholicism (the True God) and false gods like "Allah," the moon god of the Mohammedans 
• error has "rights," the alleged "right" to worship whatever they choose, anyway they want
• violence is always wrong and never permitted (e.g., a just war or personal self-defense)
• Christ is not the Prince of Peace, and by submission to His One True Church you do not obtain peace, rather "peace" is some "coexistence" to get along and solve humanistic problems
• Christ and His Church is not the exclusive way to salvation. All beliefs are more or less good and praiseworthy, all systems of morals are more or less acceptable (as long as you "try to be a good person") and all paths lead to salvation
• The True Church is "divided" and needs to "reunite" with false sects calling themselves "Christian," and then all religions must "unite as brothers and sisters" in a One World Religion 

The Novus Bogus "mass" is ecumenical in nature as a result of the heretical Vatican II ecclesiology. To give but a few examples:

• It resembles the Protestant "Lord's Supper" with singing and hand-holding around a table
• The role of the "priest" is more or less that of a Protestant minister. "Homilies" and self-help talks is mostly all they do
• Belief in the Real Presence (which they no longer have anyway) is virtually obliterated by people standing for "communion" and putting it in their hand, while being dressed immodestly or like a slob
• The "priesthood of all believers" is seen by laymen and laywomen handing out "communion;" the laity reads the "lectionary;" and married "deacons" are doing almost everything the so-called priest does

The Vatican II sect is also ecumenical in what they omit in their teachings and "homilies." You will never hear:

• There is no salvation Outside the One True Church
• Islam is Satanic in origin
• Catholicism should be the State religion
• Error has no rights

All of this comes as a result of the heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II that teaches there is a Church of Christ distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Christ is present in its "fullness" in the Roman Catholic Church, but it is present in various degrees in false sects according to how many "elements of truth" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but just having some is good too, and leads to salvation. If you look back at the examples of ecumenism I gave, it's easy to see how they are the logical result of this false ecclesiology (or "teaching on the nature of the Church"). You often hear about someone being or entering into "full communion" with Modernist Rome, which clearly implies you can be in "partial communion." This is why Wojtyla (John Paul II) could kiss the Satanic Koran; because it contains some "elements of truth." By the same logic you could kiss the Satanic Bible because it has "some truth" in it too.

Therefore, it is no wonder that ecumenism is rightfully seen as a dirty word. Many will be surprised that there is a truly Catholic ecumenism! The correct concept of ecumenism will be explored in this post. The information below is, in large part, condensed from Catholic Ecumenism, Catholic University of America Press, 1953 (published with full ecclesiastical approval) by theologian Hanahoe.

The Authentic Ecumenism Taught By The Church

1. Unity. The Church was not only numerically one from the Will and intention of Christ, but She also has ever been one and shall be one until the end of time, as it is one of the Four Marks of the Church. Pope Pius XI taught:

This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations." In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?" It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it. (See Mortalium Animos, para. #6). 

The Church is incapable of being divided. Those who leave are not "other churches" because Christ founded only one Church. Nor are those sects "part" of the Church. They are groups of heretics and/or schismatics that have no right to exist and are a means of damnation. The True Church is not "divided" or "less unified" because some leave and call themselves "churches." As Pope Leo XIII taught: 

The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ....He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation" [S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6]. (See Satis Cognitum, para. #5). 

2. The proper approach of ecumenism. Catholic ecumenism looks from a position of unity in possession, whereas false ecumenism looks for unity as not yet possessed. The false view looks for theories and means of obtaining unity, while true ecumenism aims to share a divinely-given unity which already exists. The primary question should not, therefore, be "How can unity be achieved?"--but rather "How did Christ will His Church to be one?" The answer is to be found in the words of Pope Leo XIII:

Wherefore Jesus Christ bade all men, present and future, follow Him as their leader and Saviour; and this, not merely as individuals, but as forming a society, organized and united in mind. In this way a duly constituted society should exist, formed out of the divided multitude of peoples, one in faith, one in end, one in the participation of the means adapted to the attainment of the end, and one as subject to one and the same authority. To this end He established in the Church all principles which necessarily tend to make organized human societies, and through which they attain the perfection proper to each. That is, in it (the Church), all who wished to be the sons of God by adoption might attain to the perfection demanded by their high calling, and might obtain salvation. The Church, therefore, as we have said, is man's guide to whatever pertains to Heaven. (See Satis Cognitum, para. #10). Therefore, unity is to be had by converting to the One True Church. This conversion must be individual, as corporate reunion is impossible on several grounds.

3. What is "corporate reunion"? Formal corporate reunion may be defined as that act whereby a society of baptized persons, professing the Integral Catholic Faith, enter the Church through a judicially authorized action of legitimate representatives (e.g. Eastern Schismatics who are allowed to retain the Byzantine Rite of Mass, and certain ecclesiastical customs). Material corporate reunion is the return to the Church by a group of people who receive no status like the Easterns. It's just like-minded people professing the Integral Catholic Faith. It is not "a Church joining the Catholic Church" in either case.

Heretical Conceptions of Corporate Reunion

 1. The "Branch Theory." The Church is a "tree with three branches:" the Catholic Church, Eastern Schismatics, and Anglicans because of a valid hierarchy and closeness of doctrine. This theory is CONDEMNED by the Holy Office in the decree Quod vos, and any idea of Anglicans having valid orders was rejected by Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void" in the Apostolic Constitution Apostolicae Curae of 1896. 

2. "Mutual recognition." According to this heresy, two religious bodies, acting as "sovereign states," provide for intercommunion while maintaining independence (such as agreements between the Old Catholic sect and the Anglican sect). This diametrically contradicts the dogma of the unicity of the Church as well as the absolute necessity of the Church for salvation. As such, it stands CONDEMNED.

3. Compromise. This heresy would agree on "certain fundamental doctrines" which must be accepted, and allowing members to accept or reject all other doctrines as "non-fundamental" and unnecessary to salvation. Pope Pius XI CONDEMNED this notion: "...in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican." (See Mortalium Animos, para. #9). 

Of interest, theologian Hanahoe singles out censured Modernist theologian, Fr.Yves Congar for promoting another false concept of "unity." He quotes Congar, "We cannot say that any dissident Christian body whatever is a member of Una Ecclesia. Nevertheless, it would seem to the present writer that the various dissident Christian bodies, each in a varying degree, may be regarded in some fashion as elements of the Church." (See Catholic Ecumenism, pg. 101; Emphasis in the original). In response to Congar, theologian Hanahoe writes, "There is no justification to be found in papal documents for these declarations...The evidence as to what constitutes a person as a member of the Church is unequivocal and definite." (Ibid; Emphasis mine). 

  

We see clearly that the "elements theory" of "participating in the Church" by various degrees according to the amount of "elements" a sect possesses, was CONDEMNED. Just eleven years later (1964), Vatican II would adopt this condemned and heretical theory in Lumen Gentium. Who were the periti (i.e., "theological experts") commissioned by Montini (Paul VI) to draw up that document?  Arch-heretics Gerard Phillips, Karl Rahner, Jean Danielou and Yves Congar.

4. Summation of Catholic Ecumenism. For a whole false sect to be swept into the One True Church by an act of its leaders is inconceivable for the most part. The Church has too high a regard for the bonds of membership which She communicates to those converted to Her; She has too great a respect for the dignity and intelligence involved in the freedom of the act of Faith. Ecumenism must be by the individuals submitting, fully and without reservation to the One True Church of Christ. In the words of the Instruction of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (December 20, 1949) regarding Catholic Ecumenists:"The whole and entire body of Catholic doctrine is, therefore, to be proposed and explained. Nothing embraced in the Catholic truth concerning the true nature and means of justification, the constitution of the Church, the Roman Pontiff's primacy of jurisdiction and the only real union effectuated by a return of dissidents to the One True Church, must be passed over in silence or cloaked in ambiguous language...All this must be truly set forth clearly and intelligibly for the double reason that they are really seeking the truth and that outside the truth no true union can ever be attained."

Conclusion

You have just read the true teaching on Catholic Ecumenism, and the heretical non-Catholic teaching which was always condemned. I'm going to conclude this post with a few quotes from official Vatican II documents, and statements of the post-Vatican II "popes." Ask yourself, "Is this true or false ecumenism being taught?" No commentary from me will be necessary.

"Pope" John Paul II: "The elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other Communities, where certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized. Ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity." (See Ut Unam Sint, para. #14). 

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, para. #15: "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter."

Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #3: "It follows that the separated Churches [sic] and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." 

"Pope" John Paul II: "Christ's Mystical Body is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church." (See L'Osservatore Romano, May 6, 1980).

"Pope" Francis: "I believe in God - not in a Catholic God; there is no Catholic God."

(See https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/pope_francis_571226)

And therefore, "Proselytism is solemn nonsense."

Executing The Truth

The Argentinian apostate calling himself "pope" of the Roman Catholic Church, Jorge Bergoglio, has once more demonstrated that he cannot possibly be the Vicar of Christ. On August 2, 2018, Bergoglio announced that he was changing the Vatican II sect's stance on capital punishment. According to the Modernist Vatican's Congregation for the [Destruction of the] Doctrine of the Faith:

"Ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes. This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people."

Furthermore, "Pope" Francis is changing the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), to make it even more evil. Section Number 2267 is being revised as follows:

"The new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime."

The implications of this act are staggering. Is it merely "authentic development of doctrine?" Is it "not a contradiction" with prior Magisterial teachings (of the True Church, pre-Vatican II)? Are the reasons advanced against the death penalty sound? These are the questions to be explored in this post.

The Traditional Teaching of the One True Church on Capital Punishment

 The New York Times states that "Abolishing the death penalty has long been one of his [Francis'] top priorities, along with saving the environment and caring for immigrants and refugees." (See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/world/europe/pope-death-penalty.html). Saving unborn babies from being slaughtered by abortion didn't make the list, which is apparent as His Wickedness didn't say or do anything before Ireland's successful vote to end its Constitutional recognition of the unborn's right to life. His priorities are those of a left-wing politician, not the visible Head of Christ's True Church (which he is not). Notice the complete lack of spiritual priorities from the list. Nothing about saving souls, reparation for sin, making converts, or even purging his sect of the rampant sodomites.  However, his failings go much deeper than that. Let's take a look at the teachings of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians, the popes, the practice of the Church, and Sacred Scripture. For these sections only, the quotes from these sources will be in red font, so to make it stand out as clearly as the teaching itself. 

1. The Theologians

According to theologian Prummer, "Only the State has the right to put to death those who have committed most serious crimes. The State has this right since the penalty of death is sometimes necessary for safeguarding the common weal [good] and only the State has the duty of safeguarding society. Capital punishment must be reserved for the most serious of crimes and these must be fully proven...Since the State has the power to put the criminal to death, so it has the power for a sufficient reason to mutilate the criminal (e.g., by cutting off his hand) or to flog him." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, pg. 126).

Theologians McHugh and Callan teach, "Killing human beings is lawful in two cases. (a) It is lawful when when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment)" (See Moral Theology 2: 100). They also assert, "Though lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means." (See Moral Theology, 2: 101).

Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas taught, "It is lawful to kill an evildoer insofar as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the communities welfare...[to] lawfully put evildoers to death." (See ST II-II, 64, 3)

Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori taught, "...if it is necessary for the defense of the republic...[or] in order to preserve the order of law" the death penalty is licit." (See Theologia Moralis III, 4, 1).

Theologian Jone writes, "A criminal may be executed if juridical proof has established the moral certainty that he has committed a grave crime for which the State, in the interest of the common welfare, inflicts capital punishment, and if someone has been authorized by the State to execute the sentence." (See Moral Theology, pg. 140).

Two principles can be adduced from these teachings: (a) Capital punishment is not wrong per se, and (b) it is not necessary to use it if the common good of the State can be had be less severe means. There is no eminent theologian who holds the use of capital punishment to be inherently evil, immoral, or impermissible under all circumstances.

2. The Popes and the Practice of the Church

Proposition required by Pope Innocent III as a condition to be readmitted to the Church: "We declare that the secular power can without mortal sin impose a judgement of blood provided the punishment is carried out not in hatred but in good judgement, not inconsistently but after mature deliberation."

"From 1815, when the pope regained political control of Rome from Napoleon, until 1870, the popes ordered the executions of hundreds of malefactors." (See Norko, M., "The Death Penalty in Catholic Teaching and Medicine: Intersections and Places for Dialogue," Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 36 (2008): 470-481). This covers five pontificates, to wit: Pope Pius VII (1800-1823), Pope Leo XII (1823-1829), Pope Pius VIII (1829-1830), Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) and Pope Pius IX (1846-1878).

In his encyclical Pastoralis Officii (1891), Pope Leo XIII taught, "Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause, to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self defense." (para. #2; Emphasis mine).

The Catechism of Saint Pius X, says in the discussion on the Fifth Commandment, "It is lawful to kill...when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment for a crime."

In the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (1930), the pope teaches, "It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life, for here [i.e., abortion] it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty...(para. #64; Emphasis mine).

When Pope Pius IX was asked to grant a stay of execution for those condemned in 1868, the pope firmly replied, "I cannot, and I do not want to." In the Lateran Treaty of 1929, approved by Pope Pius XI, there was a provision for the execution of anyone attempting to assassinate  the Pope within the Vatican. (See https://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/hanging-concentrates-the-mind).

In the bull Exsurge Domine, excommunicating Martin Luther and condemning his heresies, CONDEMNED proposition # 33 states, "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit." Since heresy is a worse crime than physical murder because it kills the life of the soul, the death penalty for heretics in Catholic countries is justified. ("And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hell." St. Matthew 10:28).

What Sacred Scripture Teaches

1. The Old Testament

Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man." This simple verse both explains what the punishment for murder should be and why murder merits it.

Exodus 21:12:  "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death."

Leviticus 24:17 : "And if a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death."

Numbers 35:31: "Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death."

2. The New Testament

Many erroneously think Jesus did away with capital punishment when He said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (St. Matthew 5:38-42).

Here, the context makes evident Christ was referring to revenge and dealing with enemies on a personal level, not punishment by civil authorities. Furthermore, He is being hyperbolic. He's not commanding someone who is assaulted to allow himself to be hit again, nor is someone who is sued expected to forego representation and not fight against it in court. In St. Matthew 5:17 Jesus taught, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill them."

Jesus tells Pilate in St. John 19:11, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above …." This authority to put Jesus to death would be odd if it didn't entail the general power to execute criminals. Christ was a victim of the death penalty but did not condemn it. It was wrong in His case because the Jews who wanted Him crucified, and Pontius Pilate who acquiesced to it, knew He was innocent.

Finally, when He is dying by crucifixion, Jesus accepts the repentance of the Good Thief on the cross, who says to his evil companion, "Dost thou not even fear God, since thou art under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds…" (St. Luke 23:40-41). Had Jesus disagreed with this statement, responding to it with the promise of eternal salvation certainly isn't a way to show the Good Thief he was wrong--"And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise." (St. Luke 23:43). Denying the death penalty directly assaults the justice of God the Father—the One Who required His own Son, Jesus Christ, to pay precisely that price in our stead.

The False Reasoning and Heretical Teaching of "Pope" Francis

 As demonstrated above from the teachings of the popes, theologians, the Bible, and the constant practice of the Church, capital punishment is not wrong in principle. If capital punishment really were, after all, always and intrinsically immoral, this would be an admission that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium can teach error and give evil---a denial of the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church. 

Bergoglio proffers two reasons that allege capital punishment is always wrong: (1) It "attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes" and (2)  the State should be oriented to rehabilitation, and "given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people." He also seems to suggest that the "dignity of the person" is somehow enhanced by modern penal systems; his second reason. 

1. The "Dignity of the Person" Argument

If the death penalty was intrinsically evil because of "human dignity," it was always wrong and could not "become wrong." People have not "developed more human dignity." Human beings were, from the very beginning, made in the image and likeness of God. It doesn't become "more true" or "less true" with the passage of time. Moreover, it flatly contradicts the teaching of the Bible that affirms humans are made in the image of God and supports the death penalty: Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man."(Emphasis mine).

Second, how does the (alleged) fact of the death penalty not being needed for the protection of innocent people "increase human dignity?" There is no evidence offered to show that under all circumstances everywhere in the world, capital punishment is not necessary to protect innocent people. As the theologians taught, the death penalty may be omitted when less severe means can be used for the protection of society, but it is not a requirement to do so. There certainly seems to be an implication that "human dignity" makes capital punishment unlawful under all circumstances, which is absurd. 

Third, the specious argument assumes that all the popes, theologians and Doctors of the Church--as well as the practice of the Church Herself--was always wrong until now, and the Church can teach error. None of them fully understood the "dignity of the human person" and none required capital punishment to be abandoned if less severe means could be used to protect the public welfare. This is a denial of the dogma of Indefectibility. It is rank heresy. 

2. The Rehabilitation and Efficient Detention Systems Argument

Here's a Vatican II conundrum: If the death penalty is always wrong because of the inherent "dignity of the person," how are rehabilitation and efficient detention systems relevant? If it is wrong because of of human dignity, it was always wrong regardless of the deficiency of rehabilitation and detention systems. The first argument, if true, would render the second argument superfluous. It would also give another erroneous idea: that in times where you couldn't protect the lives of innocent people, it was OK to execute criminals and violate their human dignity as being made in the image of God.  (This is "Vatican II logic" so don't be surprised at internal contradictions).  If the argument is that "human dignity" has somehow been "enhanced" by modern rehabilitation and detention systems, it certainly doesn't even begin to make sense because (a) humans have always been made in God's image which gives them their dignity; that image isn't rendered better because of extrinsic conditions and (b) the Church never required the death penalty to be abandoned if less severe means of protecting society could obtained. 

• Rehabilitation and Detention--Considered and Dismissed

The idea of rehabilitation has been, of course, considered and rejected as a reason for condemning capital punishment. The great saint, theologian, and Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas had this to say:

"The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at the critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." (See Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146).

On balance, there is more danger in letting a murderer live than trying to rehabilitate him. There is much damage the criminal can do. If imprisoned for life, he might contribute to the hardening in evil of other wicked men; after all, don't people want to keep juvenile offenders out of prison because it makes them worse when they get out? The killer might murder another inmate or a corrections officer. Nor is prison and attempted rehabilitation a guarantee he will not escape and kill again. Capital punishment is 100% effective in stopping further murdering from that individual.

What about innocent people who have been wrongfully executed?  Bad consequences don't cause something intrinsically good to become evil, and good consequences don't cause something intrinsically evil to become good. No system of justice is perfect, and sometimes innocent people are executed. However, many times innocent people are sent to jail for decades and die there, only to be vindicated posthumously. Does that make putting people in jail intrinsically evil? Likewise, a woman who has an abortion because she doesn't want to stop working will get the good effect of more income, but that can never justify the intrinsically evil act of murdering an innocent unborn baby.

Finally, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII makes it clear that punishment is not merely a defensive or protective reaction to an evil act committed (or could be committed again in the future), but it is properly inflicted on the offender after the act, whether or not he may commit a crime again, precisely because he is in a state of guilt either way. This teaching, rooted in the notion of guilt and taught by the Magisterium, is expressly rejected by Bergoglio.

In his "Discourse to the Catholic Jurists of Italy" (December 5, 1954), Pope Pius XII said, "We add that the criminal has brought about, by his act, a state which does not automatically cease when the act itself is completed. He remains the man who has consciously and deliberately violated a law which binds him (reatus culpae), and simultaneously he is involved in the penalty (reatus poenae). This personal condition endures, both in his relation to the authority on which he depends, or better, the human authority of public law in so far as this has a share in the corresponding penal process, and at all times also, in his relation to the supreme divine authority. Thus there is brought about an enduring state of guilt and punishment, which indicates a definite condition of the guilty party in the eyes of the authority offended, and of this authority with respect to the guilty party (St. Thomas: Sum. Theol. III, q. 69, a. 2, obj . 3 et ad 3)."

"No Rupture with the Past"

The self-serving statement by the Modernist Vatican that Bergoglio's change in doctrine "expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium" is--to be charitable--pure baloney. The very fact they try to explain it away is a sure indication that it is a contradiction. Just as Ratzinger tried to assure us in the year 2000 that "subsists" means the same thing as "is" in Lumen Gentium (1964), with its heretical ecclesiology, Bergoglio lies. (In the history of the Church, there was never a time wherein 36 years after an Ecumenical Council ended, they still had to "clarify" its meaning; another sure indication that the Vatican II sect is not the Roman Catholic Church).

We have just seen the teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium on capital punishment since the establishment of the One True Church by Her Divine Founder, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. What Bergoglio teaches is a direct contradiction. How does he attempt to explain it as "an authentic development" that is "not in contradiction" with past teaching? 

He claims penal sanctions were understood differently. No. The Church understood that humanity was created in the image of God. She understood human life was sacred. Nevertheless, the taking of human life by the State for a capital offense was considered moral in principle and not a violation of the sacredness of life or human dignity. The fact that modern day heathens cry tears over executed murderers, but support the murder of innocent little babies by abortion does nothing to changes the basic facts and principles pronounced upon by the Church since Her beginning. Pope St. Pius X, in his great encyclical Lamentabili Sane, condemns the following error of the Modernists:  "Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places." 

He claims capital punishment developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime. As demonstrated above, recidivism is irrelevant to punishment justly incurred, as was taught by the approved theologians and Pope Pius XII. 

Conclusion

 "Pope" Francis has directly contradicted a teaching guaranteed as true by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. His claim that capital punishment is always wrong, despite his protests to the contrary, is a contradiction to all prior Magisterial teaching, and a manifest denial of the Indefectibility of the Church. Jorge Bergoglio cannot be pope, as he is a notorious heretic. When will the "recognize and resisters" and the "conservative" Vatican II sect members wake up to the truth? Bergoglio has executed yet another truth, and leads millions on the road to Hell. Surely, Christ had Bergoglio in mind when He said to "...fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hell." (St. Matthew 10:28). 

Singing For Satan---Part 13

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.

David Bowie

 David Robert Jones was born January 8, 1947, and became one of the most influential of all individuals in rock music, according to Rolling Stone magazine. Due to the popularity of Davey Jones, a member of the made for television, pop-rock band The Monkees (who imitated The Beatles), David Jones changed his last name to Bowie, after the famous Bowie knife. It is said the idea for the name came to him when The Rolling Stones' lead singer Mick Jagger was being given the nickname "Jagger the Dagger" in the U.K. 

Born in Brixton, South London, Bowie was always interested in music, and had natural talent. He didn't become famous until he created the persona of "Ziggy Stardust," an androgynous "space god" alter ego featured on his fifth (and very successful) album The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars (1972). With his career launched, he went on to sell over 140 million albums worldwide, and he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1996. He continued working in music his whole life. He released his 25th and last album entitled Blackstar on his 69th birthday. He went to Judgement two days later, on January 10, 2016 as the result of complications arising from liver cancer. He had kept his illness a secret having been diagnosed 18 months earlier. Bowie also acted in movies; one of his most memorable (and infamous) roles was as Pontius Pilate in the blasphemous film The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). 

Bowie: Making "Gay" OK

The androgynous and openly bi-sexual predator and pervert, David Bowie

 Bowie was one of the first artists to openly declare himself "bisexual" and sport an androgynous look that was part of the so-called "glitter rock" movement of the 1970s. He wore feminine make-up and produced some songs that would be the forerunner of disco music in the late 1970s. (See Time Magazine, July 18, 1983 issue).  In that same issue of Time, Bowie reveals he met his first wife, Angela Barnett "while they were laying the same bloke" (i.e., engaged in a menage a trois---three people having sex with each other).  Bowie and Barnett had a live-in friend named Tony Visconti. Visconti said life with the married couple was sheer debauchery. "Thursday night was gay night. David would go to a gay club, Angie to a lesbian club, and they would bring home people they found. [I] had to lock the bedroom door because these people they brought back home with them would come climbing into new beds looking for fresh blood." (Ibid,pg. 58).  Bowie also slept with his lead guitar player Mick Ronson, and once claimed to have committed a homosexual act with him while in concert. It is alleged that he slept with his at one time hero, Mick Jagger. 

According to a posthumous biography, David Bowie: A Life, by Dylan Jones, Bowie was a sexual predator. 

The book, well-sourced, states:

• During his prime, the rock star would engage in orgies, have multiple affairs at once, and even invite others to watch him have sex with women

• "He used his bisexuality...he used his appeal to get what he wanted," writer Wendy Leigh said

• Bowie's reputation landed him an offer to sleep with the warm dead body of someone who just died (i.e. necrophilia) when he was on tour in Philadelphia - but he declined

• He slept with girls as young as 13 when he was in his 30s--statutory rape

• Had multiple affairs on his girlfriends, usually sleeping with both men and women while living with the girlfriend

• He deflowered a 15 year old virgin admirer, Lori Mattix, after getting her high on champagne and marijuana  

Bowie: Too Drugged Out For Other Junkies

John Lennon and Elton John, both friends of the pervert, were horrified by the extent of Bowie’s cocaine habit. (Keep in mind both Lennon and John were drug addicts!). According to Lennon’s then girlfriend May Pang, no one had ever "seen such mounds of the stuff" as Bowie consumed. While living in Los Angeles in 1975, Bowie experienced the worst of his cocaine psychosis. He did more cocaine than anyone, and it almost killed him. Staying with Glenn Hughes (musician for the rock group "Deep Purple") who lived half a mile from where the Manson murders took place, David Bowie wanted to bury all the sharp knives. He feared the Manson family might come to get him – even though they were now all in jail. He weighed 95 lbs and was snorting 7 grams of coke a day. He snorted so much cocaine, the cartilage of his nose had to be replaced surgically with cartilage from other places in his body. 

While high he would watch films of Hitler and the Nazis, whom he admired. He called the German Fuhrer "the first Pop star" because of his massive mesmerizing theatrical political rallies where he hypnotized the citizens of Germany with his words.

His song Ashes to Ashes --according to Bowie himself--is about "astronauts becoming junkies;" obviously written during one of his drug-induced psychotic episodes.

The shrieking of nothing is killing, just
Pictures of Jap girls in synthesis and I
Ain't got no money and I ain't got no hair
But I'm hoping to kick but the planet it's glowing
Ashes to ashes, funk to funky
We know Major Tom's a junkie
Strung out in heaven's high
Hitting an all-time low
Time and again I tell myself
I'll stay clean tonight
But the little green wheels are following me
Oh no, not again
I'm stuck with a valuable friend
"I'm happy, hope you're happy too"
One flash of light but no smoking pistol (Emphasis mine)

Bowie: Satanist and Occultist

Left: Satanist and occultist Aleister Crowley; Right: David Bowie as he posed for a picture to be placed on  his album Space Oddity. He imitates his "hero."

 Bowie has bounced around many religions. He said, " I was young, fancy free, and Tibetan Buddhism appealed to me at that time. I thought, 'There’s salvation.' It didn’t really work. Then I went through Nietzsche, Satanism, Christianity… pottery, and ended up singing. It’s been a long road" (See interview with lesbian Ellen DeGeneres https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVLLoVvHSOw; Emphasis mine). 

In 1976, Bowie had said, "My overriding interest was in Kabbalah and Crowleyism. That whole dark and rather fearsome never–world of the wrong side of the brain.." In 1995 he stated, "I’ve been interested in the Gnostics." (See NME, 1976 and November 1995). The Kabbalah is an occult and anti-Christian Jewish text. "Crowleyism" refers to the teachings of the Satanist and Occultist Aleister Crowley (d.1947). Gnosticism was a heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

The androgynous nature of his alter ego, Ziggy Stardust, represents-- in the world of the occult-- a state of higher spiritual level. In occultism, the highest stage of illumination is achieved through the internalization of duality and the equilibrium between opposing forces –  good and evil, active and passive, male and female.Contrarily to "Major Tom," the fictitious character in many of Bowie's songs (who ascended from Earth to the skies), Ziggy Stardust descends from the "heavens." He is a "higher being" who takes the form of a human in order to communicate a message, a counterfeit version of Jesus Christ.

In his song Quicksand, Bowie sings:

I’m closer to the Golden Dawn
Immersed in Crowley’s uniform
I’m not a prophet or a stone-age man
Just a mortal with potential of a superman

When Bowie states that he is "immersed in Crowley’s uniform," he is referring to Aleister Crowley, who was a member of the Golden Dawn (an occult society) and a founder of the O.T.O (Ordo Templi Orientist--a Satanic society with possible ties to Freemasonry). In 2003, a 56 year old David Bowie gave an interview in which he claimed he was "almost an atheist." He said, "I’m not quite an atheist and it worries me. There’s that little bit that holds on: Well, I’m almost an atheist. Give me a couple of months." (See http://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/2005/07/im-not-quite-an-atheist-and-it-worries-me.aspx).

Bowie's Evil Music

 In the song Seven, he rejects all the "gods" he followed, including Christianity (Bowie claims to have been Christian at some point, but was raised without any faith):

The gods forgot they've made me
So I forgot them too
I listen to the shadows
I play among their graves

The song Underground is about Hell, but it's not seen as bad, but a place where "nothing ever hurts again." Yet, he asks "daddy" to help him leave. We know who Bowie's "daddy" really is: "Thou art of thy father the devil, and thy will is to do thy father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (St. John 8:44).

But down in the underground
You'll find someone true
Down in the underground
A land serene, a crystal moon
A-ha
It's only forever
Not long at all
Lost and lonely
That's underground, underground
Daddy, daddy, get me out of here (heard about a place today)
Ha, ha, I'm underground (nothing ever hurts again)
(Nothing ever hurts again) well, I found a place
(Daddy, get me out of here) nothing ever hurts again
(Hoping for the underground) down and down and get me out of here
(Hoping for the underground) ha, ha, I'm underground

Released two days before his death, Blackstar is David Bowie’s last song  in which he wraps up the mythology he has cultivated for five decades. The video of the same name is a tapestry of dark images. At the center of it all: A human being becoming a "god."  It also asks "How many times does an angel fall?" A reference to Satan.

Something happened on the day he died
Spirit rose a metre and stepped aside
Somebody else took his place, and bravely cried,
"I'm a blackstar, I'm a blackstar."

How many times does an angel fall?
How many people lie instead of talking tall?
He trod on sacred ground, he cried loud into the crowd,
"I'm a blackstar, I'm a blackstar, I'm not a gangstar."

Conclusion

Some claim that Bowie converted and believed in God when faced with death. I have serious doubts about that. He requested that his ashes be scattered on the Indonesian island of Bali in line with "Buddhist rituals." I shouldn't be surprised anymore at the stark double-standard the world has for those of the world and those merely in the world as True Christians. David Bowie is the supreme pervert, to the point of statutory rape and deflowering teenage girls (some as young as 13), and he continues to be lionized by the media. Where's the outrage? If a conservative politician says something even slightly off-color, the National Organization for Women is up in arms with all the media, but a child rapist gets a free pass.  

How does a Traditionalist, or any decent parent, allow their children to listen to the rotten music that is rock, pop, and hip-hop? Bowie worshiped the devil, openly and admittedly, at one point in his life (I doubt he ever stopped). Remember the chilling words spoken by Satanist rocker Marilyn Manson in his autobiography: "Each age has to have at least one brave individual that tried to bring an end to Christianity. No one has managed to succeed yet, but maybe through music we can do it." (Emphasis mine). 

Una Cum: A Real Theologian Weighs In

To my readers:
Last July, I published a post entitled Una Cum, which dealt with the huge controversy regarding Traditional Masses, offered by valid Traditionalist priests who are not in union with Bergoglio, but nevertheless name him in the Canon of the Mass. It is my opinion that they are lawful to attend if no sedevacantist Mass is available. My post may be read here: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/07/una-cum.html. 

Fr. Cekada, who tells people that they cannot attend such Una Cum Masses under pain of mortal sin excoriated me, See: http://www.fathercekada.com/2017/09/20/some-questions-on-una-cum-masses/. He also addressed my rebuttal to him in my September 25th post (which is linked in the article I just cited). The Una Cum is so horrible (he assures us):

• It's wrong to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament while such a Mass is being offered
• You can't receive Holy Viaticum  if it were consecrated during such a Mass
• It's OK to go to Confession where an Una Cum Mass is offered, provided it would not create a scandal

Just as his whole line of argumentation about the Pian Holy Week Rites is wrong, this error is so egregious it defies belief. He is creating a huge problem by troubling the consciences of the Faithful to the point that they are told that they must forego Viaticum on their deathbed if an SSPX priest consecrated It at an Una Cum Mass!  Here we have more pontificating on an issue by someone without Magisterial authority on a disputed point of theology. Since I dealt with defending Pope Pius XII and his Holy Week Rites last week, I'll tackle Una Cum by using a real approved theologian. 

Fr. Cekada ends his brief tirade against me and Una Cum by assuring his readers, "And so here we are, ten years after my original article, and despite all the squawking, no one has yet been able to make a credible and coherent case against my arguments." 

I have often stated that I'm not a theologian, or a canonist (as was my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD) and that my opinion is not binding on anyone. I have no Magisterial authority, and people who feel they cannot attend a so-called Una Cum Francisco Mass under any condition, should follow their conscience. Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan, on the other hand, would like us to think  they are theologians and canonists (they are neither), and they pontificate on what constitutes mortal sin on disputed issues when they have no more Magisterial authority than do I. They forget the dictum of St. Augustine, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada turn a non-essential into an essential, and they often lack charity, when clerics should lead the way. I think Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan have done much good, but they must be called out when they are wrong. 

Thanks to one of my readers, I will publish below this little gem, written by a real pre-Vatican II theologian who addresses the "Una Cum" issue: Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM, STD. Fr. Stepanich was born in Kansas in 1915. Baptized "Francis," he was to become a "son" of St. Francis on September 2, 1934 and was ordained a Franciscan priest in 1941. He obtained his doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) pre-Vatican II and was a seminary professor. Fr. Stepanich was an open sedevacantist. He left this world on November 18, 2012. Here is what a real theologian has to say on this issue! It is longer than my usual posts, but quite good and necessary to allay consciences needlessly disturbed. At the end, I add the pertinent part of a letter Fr. Stepanich addressed to Bishop Dolan on September 30, 2008. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there has been no response from Bishop Dolan or Fr. Cekada. Fr. Cekada called his first article against the Una Cum, "The Grain of Incense" available to read online here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SedesUnCum.pdf  After reading what theologian Stepanich has to say, we may all want to take what Fr. Cekada writes with a Grain of Salt.---Introibo.

Attendance at “Una Cum Benedicto”

Tridentine Latin Masses

By Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM, STD

Our Lord’s “Little Flock” of today’s genuine traditional Catholics, scattered about as it is in various places, has the distinction of preserving intact the Tridentine Latin Mass as it was put before the Catholic world by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, in response to a directive of the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563). In his Quo Primum decree of July 19, 1570, the Holy Father declared that his objective was to "restore," as he worded it, the ancient "norm and rite of the Mass of the Fathers" – that is, the norm and rite of the Latin Mass as it was offered by popes and bishops and priests since the early years of the Church’s existence.

 A strange development of these distressing Vatican II times is the fact that the Tridentine Latin Mass is now being offered by bishops and priests of two conflicting groups. One groups of today’s truly traditional bishops and priests offering the Tridentine Latin Mass leaves out completely the name of any pope from the una cum phrase that comes up towards the end of the Te Igitur prayer with which the Canon of the Tridentine Mass begins. Those who use hand missals, such as Father Lasance’s missal or St. Andrew’s missal, will know right away just where the una cum phrase comes up in the Mass, and will know what it means.

 The other group, on the contrary, does the un-traditional and decidedly un-Catholic thing of inserting into the una cum phrase the name of the current modernist occupier of Peter’s Papal Chair (called also the Holy See). At this time, it is the name of modernist Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) that is added to the una cum phrase, making it an una cum Benedicto phrase. The full wording of that phrase, as it is given in the altar missal used by the priest, is una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.—that is, "together with Thy servant, our Pope, N." Before Benedict, it had been the name of Modernist John Paul (Wojtyla) that was put into the una cum phrase for some almost endless 25 years, and before him it was Modernist Paul (Montini) and Modernist John (Roncalli).

 Both groups are really sedevacantist in regard to the vacancy of the Holy See that is caused by the death of a true Catholic pope, or by a pope’s resignation (which did happen once, many centuries ago). But the vacancy issue that divides the two groups today is the vacancy of Peter’s Chair that is brought about by Modernist claimants and occupiers of that Chair who have not been professing nor practicing the traditional and unchangeable Catholic Faith for practically the past 50 years, and who therefore did not really belong on the Papal Chair of infallible truth and supreme authority.

 Benedict XVI (b16), the present illegitimate occupier of Peter’s Chair, plainly does not profess nor teach nor defend the complete and unchanged traditional Catholic Faith. In fact, his brand of supposedly "Catholic" religion is a mixture of religions. As the whole world has been able to see, B16 has been boldly and brazenly associating and collaborating with leaders of other religions in their kind of man-made religious performances, in open contradiction to the one and only true Christian religion established by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 A man like that cannot possibly be a true Catholic pope, nor can he be honestly addressed as "The Holy Father." He is not even a genuine Catholic. And that means that the Chair of Peter is in reality vacant, even with B16 all dressed up as a pope occupying it. That is what is meant by that word "sedevacantism" which is used so much today—that is, the vacancy caused by a no-pope illegitimately occupying the Papal Chair.

 The first of the two groups mentioned above includes, for example, the famed "Legendary Nine," that is the nine priests dismissed from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) by Archbishop Lefebvre long ago, with some of those priests now being bishops. That first group includes also those of the so-called "Thuc line" (after Archbishop Thuc), as well as those of the Spokane-based CMRI—plus others, including even some lone Franciscans.

 The second group includes mainly, but not only, those of the SSPX, such as it is today, that is, a mixed confusion of ant-sedevacantism, inasmuch as it mistakenly and stubbornly looks upon B16 as being a legitimate occupier of Peter’s Chair, and at the same time of sedevacantism, inasmuch as it stubbornly persists in disobeying B16 in refusing to go along with all of his aberrations – as if telling him that, for them, he is not really the pope, and therefore, the Papal Chair is really vacant.

 Such being the confused and confusing situation facing today’s traditional Catholics, they are in the perplexing position of being obliged to decide whether it is ever lawful for them to attend the otherwise valid Tridentine Latin Masses of the SSPX, despite the presence of no-pope religion-mixer B16’s name in the Canon of those Masses. There are variations of understanding and practice among sedevacantist traditional Catholics as to the lawfulness of them attending una cum Benedicto Masses.

 Many traditional Catholics are fortunate enough—Deo gratias!—to be living within reachable distance of a sedevacantist church, or Mass location, where they can always attend a Benedicto-free Tridentine Latin Mass. However, if for some serious reason or other they are unable to get to their own usual sedevacantist church on a given Sunday (for example, because of bad weather conditions), yet are able to get to a near-by anti-sedevacantist SSPX church featuring the una cum Benedicto Mass, some of them will decide simply to stay home, not wanting to be part of such a Mass.

 Others among them, on the contrary, decide to go anyway to an SSPX una cum Benedicto valid Tridentine Latin Mass figuring that in such a case they surely would be justified in so doing provided that they do not consent to the priest adding the name of B16 to the una cum phrase. And then there are still others in whose region or country there is no B16-free Tridentine Latin Mass at all to go to, while there is an SSPX una cum Benedicto Mass within reach. They, too, would believe that they are justified in attending such a validly offered Mass, as long as they do not approve of the priest giving honorable mention in the Mass to a false pope.

Which is the right decision for sedevacantist traditional Catholics to make on this puzzling headache issue? Is it, as some believe, never lawful to attend any una cum Benedicto Mass for any reason whatsoever, no matter how valid and Catholic it may otherwise be? Does the name of a false pope in the Canon of the Mass so vitiate the Mass that it is unfit to be attended by conscientious traditional Catholics? Are the act of offering the Mass by the priest and his act of naming a false pope so closely bound up together that the Mass cannot be spiritually beneficial to those attending the Mass if the name of a false pope is included in the prayers of the Mass? Does the very presence of traditional Catholics at an una cum Benedicto Mass automatically an unavoidably mean that they ratify and consent to the naming of B16 in the Mass?

 We naturally had to wonder if there is some kind of teaching of popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times that would help clear up things for us on that thorny una cum Benedicto issue. A determined and well-meaning attempt to settle things on that issue has indeed been made, although the purpose was decidedly  one-sided, inasmuch as the idea was to prove that in no way could traditional Catholics ever lawfully attend una cum Benedicto Masses. Research, described as "exhaustive research," has come with the statement that "various popes and pre-Vatican II theologians taught that the laity who assist actively at mass, in so doing manifest their consent and moral cooperation with the priest as he offers the Sacrifice," but also to his adding of the name of B16 to the Canon of the Mass.

 However, it is as plain as could be that there is no indication whatsoever, in the above quote, that the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians referred to gave any thought at all to Masses with the name of a false pope in the una cum phrase of the Canon. They undoubtedly had in mind the kind of Mass they knew, that is, the traditional Latin Mass of the ages, not anything like the una cum Benedicto Masses that we know today.

 The unquestionable fact is that the popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times did not see with their own eyes the Modernist popes promoting a plainly new un-Catholic religion, the way we have been doing, nor did they hear with their own ears the false teaching of modernist popes and theologians, nor did they ever get to read their modernist un-Catholic writings. So they did not have occasion to warn against, and condemn, Masses like the una cum Benedicto Masses that today’s traditional theologians, as well as informed lay Catholics, have been obliged to condemn repeatedly in these Vatican II times. Pre-Vatican II popes and theologians did not address the una cum Benedicto Mass issue, of which they knew nothing first hand the way we have known it.

If we try to use the words of popes and pre-Vatican II theologians, as already quoted above, and make them say that attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses is always absolutely forbidden under any and all circumstances, it is we who are really doing that kind of forbidding, not the popes and the pre-Vatican II theologians. Just try to find anything in the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians that totally and absolutely forbids any and all attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses by traditional sedevacantist Catholics. It just isn’t there! (Emphasis mine---Introibo)

 A second quote, resulting from the aforementioned "exhaustive research," tells us that "the Fathers of the Church, as well as Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Mediator Dei, teach specifically that the faithful who actively assist at Mass ratify, assent to, and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites."
What that second quote really does is to stress the fact that the faithful attending Mass are not there merely as spectators watching the priest perform at the altar. No, they are present at Mass to unite themselves with the priest in heart and mind and intention as he offers the Sacrifice. It is not enough for the faithful to be there at Mass only bodily, while maybe saying prayers of their own that have no connection with the Mass.

The faithful attending Mass are there as one with the priest, so that the Mass is being offered by the priest and the faithful together. The priest alone has the power to offer the Mass and to consecrate, but the faithful unite themselves with the priest, as he offers the Mass, though not as he consecrates. The idea that the faithful as closely united with the priest in the offering of the Mass runs all through the various prayers of the Sacrifice. For example, "offerimus," that is, "we offer" – also, "pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable before God the Father Almighty."

 And that is the issue which the second quote given above really addresses –that is, the issue of the union of the attending faithful with the offering priest. And that is why that second quote says that the faithful "ratify, assent to and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites." Those prayers of the Canon which the Fathers and Pius XII, were undoubtedly referring to were the traditional fully Catholic prayers of the Mass as they were always recited before Vatican II, without any false pope’s name being mixed into the prayers. The Fathers and Pius XII, as well as the pre-Vatican II theologians, did not have occasion to warn about attendance at Masses giving recognition to a false pope. They did not address an issue like that because such an issue did not as yet exist.

 Even if we recognize the fact that sedevacantist traditional Catholics definitely can, for the right reason and with the right attitude, lawfully attend valid SSPX una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses by not consenting to the naming of the pope-pretender B16 in the Canon, we may still have reason to advise caution if we see that some may have the reckless and careless notion that the priest can say what he wants in the prayers of the Mass, just so they have a valid Mass to attend. Such an attitude is inexcusable.

A very disturbing thing about attendance at una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses is the fact that it is an awful sin to give honorable mention in the Holy Sacrifice to a false pope. To put it bluntly, it is a mortal sin—that is, in itself, considered objectively, it is plainly mortally sinful. To what extent SSPX and other priests naming a false pope in the Canon of the Mass are subjectively guilty before God —that is consciously and knowingly—that is something that only God can judge accurately and correctly.

But even though it is in itself and objectively mortally sinful for a priest to add the name of a non-pope to the una cum phrase of the Canon, that mortally sinful action can in no way change the nature of the Sacrifice itself, nor nullify its validity, nor lesson its spiritual value for those attending it.

The situation created by naming a false pope in the Mass has been called a "mortal sin situation." It helps to understand how we should look upon such a "mortal sin situation" if we consider the fact that in this sinful world we are constantly running into "mortal sin situations." We do so, for example, just by living with mortal sinners, maybe even in our own family circles; or, in dealing with and cooperating with such sinners at work or play or leisure; or, in business deals, in shopping in stores whose owners and managers approve of and promote, for example, abortion and sodomy and other evils; or, owners who are part of some evil secret society. Even such a thing as having to go through store check-outs displaying all those raw flesh mortal sin magazines is plainly an unavoidable "mortal sin situation." And how could we possibly avoid all the ubiquitous raw flesh mortal sin creatures that infest just about every place on earth, sparing not even Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament?

What we cannot fail to understand is that being unavoidably caught in a "mortal sin situation" does not mean that we necessarily "ratify, assent to, and participate in" the mortal sins in question. Similarly,neither are traditional Catholics automatically and necessarily and unavoidably guilty of "ratifying, assenting to, and participating in” the mortal sin of naming a false pope in otherwise valid una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses, if they attend such Masses for a justifiable reason and with the right attitude of mind. (Emphasis mine). 

 Some might wonder what happens to the two words, una cum ("together with") when there is no pope to be named in the una cum phrase. The truth is that those two words are still needed for mentioning the name of the bishop of the diocese in which the priest is offering Mass. Thus: una cum antistite nostro, N. (That is, "together with our bishop, N."). When Pope Pius XII died in 1958, priests living in the Chicago Archdiocese still had to say when offering Mass, una cum... antistite nostro Alberto (That is,"together with… our Bishop Albert," meaning Albert Meyer, later Cardinal Meyer).

And when there is neither pope nor bishop to be named in the una cum phrase—whether because of death or apostasy from the true catholic Faith—those two una cum words are still needed for mentioning all the faithful in general at the end of the Te Igitur prayer with which the Canon of the Mass begins. Those using missals at Mass will know that the Te Igitur prayer ends up with these words: una cum …orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus (that is:"together with … all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and Apostolic Faith").

Those who have been thoughtlessly and carelessly making it look as if all una cum Masses are objectionable, and are to be avoided, had better get things straight, and finally tell their hearers and readers that it is the una cum Benedicto Masses that are objectionable, and are normally to be avoided, not the una cum Masses. (Emphasis mine---Introibo)

 The plain fact is that all Tridentine Latin Masses are una cum Masses. All of my over 24,000 Tridentine Latin Masses offered since May of 1941, the month and year of my ordination, have been una cum Masses. None of them were Novus Ordo performances. For that a jubilant Deo gratias!!!

Excerpt from the Letter of Fr. Stepanich to Bishop Dolan

"If, as some wrongly advise you to do, you believe that traditional Catholics should avoid absolutely all Tridentine Latin Masses (like those, for example, of most, if not all, SSPX priests) in which the priest inexcusably adds the name of the scandalous religion-mixer, Benedict XVI Ratzinger, to the words una cum in the Te Igitur prayer at the beginning of the Canon of the Tridentine Latin Mass, you are not following sound advice, even though coming from those who have supposedly "exhaustively researched and studied the question of una cum Masses," but without coming to the correct conclusion.

 One thing we must not fail to realize is that Tridentine Latin Masses offered with the insertion of Benedicto after una cum are not in any way vitiated as to their validity and liceity, as well as to their fruitfulness for those attending such Masses. And such Masses can in no way be honestly called "One World Church" Masses. That derogatory term applies to Novus Ordo performances, but never to Tridentine Latin Masses, not even to those with the word Benedicto added to the una cum.

The priest offering a valid Tridentine Latin Mass who adds the word Benedicto to the una cum is, of course, seriously mistaken, whether he realizes it or not. What he does is objectively, in itself, seriously sinful, even if subjectively, in his own mind, he mistakenly thinks he is doing the right thing.

 As for traditional Catholics who attend such una cum Benedicto Masses, because they have no other Tridentine Latin Mass within reasonable distance to go to, they must never approve of the priest adding
Benedicto to una cum, nor may they be indifferent about the priest doing so, nor may they ever get the idea that it really makes no difference whether they go to a St. Gertrude Church type of una cum Mass or to an
SSPX church type of such a Mass, in which Benedicto is added to the una cum.

And let it be clearly understood that, if we concede that traditional Catholics, with no other Mass available to go to than an SSPX una cum Benedicto Mass, may lawfully go to such an SSPX Mass for the sake of the graces needed and desired, we by no means concede that they may also get involved with in any and all SSPX activities that take place in a "B16 is pope" atmosphere. We concede only that, by way of exception, they may legitimately choose to go to SSPX una cum Benedicto Masses instead of being obliged to stay home as home-aloners. But once they are able to go again to the kind of una cum Masses that are offered at true traditional churches, they must stop going to the una cum Benedicto Masses altogether. They must never forget that the name of a pope-pretender, such as the name of the religion-mixer B16, cannot lawfully be given the honorable place reserved only for the names of true Catholic popes after the words una cum at the beginning of the Canon of the Tridentine Latin Mass.

 Let us repeat once again, and as often as necessary, that a priest who, whether knowingly or supposedly innocent ignorance, adds Benedicto to the words of the una cum in his offering of the Tridentine Latin Mass does not and cannot, ruin the inherent value and fruitfulness of that Mass, which retains all its God-given holiness, whether the priest is in a state of grace or in the state of mortal sin. We have known from time immemorial that there have been priests who, most unfortunately, have been in the state of mortal sin while offering Holy Mass, yet their lack of personal holiness has not destroyed the infinite holiness of their Masses.

 You surely must remember that Canon 2261, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, clearly states that "the Faithful may, for any just reason, ask for the sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicated person…" As you can readily understand, a priest who knowingly and willfully adds the name Benedicto to
the una cum prayer of the Canon of the Mass, while fully aware that religion-mixer B16 cannot possibly be
a true Catholic pope, must certainly be ipso facto excommunicated. And you know that, by Church law, the
faithful may lawfully attend his Masses and receive Communion from his excommunicated hand."

Pax et Bonum,
(signed)
Father Martin Stépanich, OFM, STD