A Flood Of Lies: Hollywood's "Noah"

 On Friday, March 28, 2014, the movie Noah starring Russell Crowe will open in theaters nationwide. I already critiqued the politically correct "Christ" in the movie Son of God (see my post of 3/13/14). However, this movie spews blasphemy after blasphemy under the guise of "artistic license." The movie cost Paramount Pictures $160 million dollars to produce, and will insult God without a word of protest from the Vatican II sect's hierarchy. How many of them will go to see this trash, unaware of what's in store?

 The movie's producer, one Darren Aronofsky, holds to fashionable New Age beliefs. He had this to say about the Biblical Noah:
“I don’t think it’s a very religious story...I think it’s a great fable that’s part of so many different religions and spiritual practices.” –Darren Aronofsky, Variety 2012.
Aronofsky makes good on his claim by taking the religion out and filling it with his occultic and politically left-wing propaganda.

 The movie Noah will use its "artistic licence" to inform us of the following:

• God didn't destroy the ancient world because of sin, it was overpopulation and a lack of environmentalism that caused the great flood
• Noah was a dark, evil, drunken ax-wielding murderer
• Noah threatened to kill his eldest son's wife and her daughter to prevent the re-population of Earth
• Noah's friend Methuselah was a witch doctor
• Noah enlisted the aid of demons to help build the Ark.     

 In Aronofsky's own words,    “It’s about environmental apocalypse which is the biggest theme, for me, right now for what’s going on this planet. So I think it’s got these big, big themes that connect with us. Noah was the first environmentalist.” (see http://www.slashfilm.com/interview-darren-aronofsky-part-3/)
Thus, according to the Noah movie, the way to be saved is not though the grace of God when a person has repentant faith, but by doing enough to "save" planet earth and by becoming a good little environmentalist. Indeed, later in the movie, Noah says, “We must change. We must treat the world with mercy so that the Creator will show us mercy…We must respect the ground, respect the rivers and seas. Respect the other beasts of the Earth.” Too bad the truth of the Bible isn't shown any respect. And, of course, the violence and sexual perversion of the day (not unlike the 21st century) which made men so evil and caused God to flood the Earth, is never mentioned once.

Hollywood screenwriter Brian Godawa condemned the Noah script under a post entitled "Darren Aronofsky's Noah: Environmentalist Wacko." Godawa wrote, "If you were expecting a Biblically faithful retelling of the story of the greatest mariner in history and a tale of redemption and obedience to God you'll be sorely disappointed.” (see http://godawa.com/movieblog/darren-aronofskys-noah-environmentalist-wacko/) Consider what actor Russell Crowe who portrayed the movie Noah said about the real Noah:
“The funny thing with people, they consider Noah to be a benevolent figure because he looked after the animals: 'Awww, Noah. Noah and the animals.' It's like, are you kidding me? This is the dude that stood by and watched the entire population of the planet perish. He's not benevolent. He's not even nice. You know what I mean? At one point in the story his son says, 'I thought you were chosen because you were good?' And he goes, 'I was chosen because I can get the job done, mate.' So I think people are gonna be...judging from where their questions come from, I think they're gonna be quite surprised what Noah actually means, what it means to be in that position." (see http://www.etonline.com/movies/134773_Russell_Crowe_Talks_Noah/)
Mr. Crowe should read what God says of Noah: “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord…. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:8-9). The movie claims it was "God's Will" that Noah's granddaughters should be killed to stop overpopulation from happening again.

Godwa's blog notes:“Most of the last half of the script is a family killer thriller like Sleeping With the Enemy, that asks the dark dramatic movie question ‘will Noah kill the child if it is a girl or not?' Ancient sex-selection infanticide. The woman gives birth to twin girls, and Noah gets all the way up to killing not one but two female infants…. But in the end, he fails. He says to himself, to the Creator, ‘I can’t. I can’t do it. I am sorry. I am so sorry.’ He is just too compassionate to carry out God’s cruel plan. Noah is more loving than God.”  ( see op. cit.)

All this falls right into the hands of the New Atheists who claim that if God did exist He must be evil. Second, it condones the murder of the innocent to "save" mother earth. There are millions of innocent babies who are murdered each year by abortion, yet we hear more about the "unethical treatment of animals." To be certain God does not condone cruelty to animals, but humans are created in His image and likeness; we are not merely evolved primates on the same level with lab rats.

 The million dollar question: "Why aren't the Vatican II clergy protesting?" (At least the ones not in prison).
I guess they're too busy promoting "Sister" Cristina, the 25 year old "singing nun" who claims that performing a suggestive song on a TV show is Bergoglio's idea of "evangelization." Or maybe finding ways of getting adulterers to receive the Novus Bogus cracker (what they refer to as "communion") is consuming all their time. In any case, they are not at all worried that thousands of their followers will be handing over money to a New Age guru who paints God as evil, Noah as a madman, and exhorts us to save the environment by lowering the human population.  I wonder if Aronofsky missed the opportunity to inform the audience that the rainbow was God's approval of sodomite "marriage?" Truly, the days we live in are as dark as those of the Biblical Noah. Pray hard.

Why Johnny Can't Be Moral

  In 2011, a sexually explicit book, entitled Fifty Shades of Grey, started what has been called "mommy porn." Young women/mothers started reading this trash deemed a "romance" novel which explores the hedonistic escapades of the fictitious character "Christian Grey."  There were two sequels and the series has generated millions of dollars. I couldn't help but notice the alleged protagonist's name---Christian Grey. His first name signifies traditional Catholic Christian morals based on the natural law and God's revelation through His One True Church. There are absolute standards of right and wrong, black and white. When black and white get mixed you have gray also spelled grey.  He's a nominal "Christian" who sees no right and wrong but only shades of gray.

  The "graying of True Christianity" began at Vatican II. With the take-over of Modernism and the Great Apostasy, the Magisterium is gone. In it's place is the Vatican II sect, rife with relativism. They espouse both religious and moral relativism. Religious relativism holds that no one religion or set of beliefs is true. We see this in ecumenism, with Bergoglio telling us "there is no Catholic God," and even atheists can go to Heaven.
Moral relativism, teaches that there exists no one set of absolute, unchanging moral standards. This is what we now see happening with "communion" for the divorced and remarried (i.e. adulterers).

 In the True Church, we know that marriage is indissoluble. If  a spouse leaves you, you must remain celibate as long as he/she lives. Now "Cardinal" Walter Kasper, along with Francis, are trying to figure out imaginative ways to justify "communion" for adulterers while still paying lip service to the indissolubility of marriage. For them, Sts. John Fisher and Thomas Moore gave up their lives needlessly. It began with the false exaltation of "conscience" at Vatican II in the heretical document Gaudium et Spes. In paragraph 16 we read, "In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more that a correct conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality."

  Really? We as Catholics, are "joined to the rest of men" in the "search for truth?" What truth is this? In all likelihood, truth concerning religion and morals. Yet, wouldn't truth have to come from the infallible teaching of the Church? For the sure possession of the truth of Faith and Morals, established over the course of the centuries by the Magisterium, the Council substitutes "inquiry"as a general criterion of some nebulous truth, something indeterminate. However, we know that this conforms to the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, which loves "inquiry," experience, novelty, and perpetual motion.

  Pope St. Pius X warned us that Modernism, which begins in agnosticism, and exalts "experience" over the intellect in seeking truth, would destroy the Faith. As a matter of fact, it is leading us to the ultimate rejection of God--atheism. Secular Humanism is the final stop for Modernism. If you break it down, it doesn't seem far-fetched, it actually seems quite close to home.

  Secular Humanism espouses the following tenets:
 1. On Nature: Materialism
(a) Physicalism. The only substance that exists is matter (God, angels, and souls do not exist)
(b) Determinism. Every event has a natural cause. (There are no miracles).
(c) Mechanism. Humanity, including life and mind, is a type of "machine." (People are not unique in any way. Life is here by pure chance).

 Vatican II is completely man-centered. The assembly of people is what matters most; if not exclusively. "Finding 'god' within" is a common theme among Vatican II clergy. When they changed the Mass into an invalid bread and wine service, they removed most references to miracles and the supernatural.

2. On Values: Conventionalism
(a) Subjectivism: Qualities and values are subjective human standards (there is no external, eternal objective morality.
(b) Hedonism: The only ethical standards are pleasure (good) and pain (evil).
(c) Relativism: Standards of conduct vary according to time, place, and individual.

 This is where Bergoglio is headed. "Who am I to judge?" If having your third trophy "wife" feels good, do it, and we'll find the mental gymnastics necessary to make it seem right and objective when it is neither.Remember not to concentrate on "small-minded rules" about abortion, birth control, and sodomy.

3. On Society: Contractualism
(a) Individualism: The atomic individual is the basic political unit.
(b) Social Contract: Government is nothing more than a contract between people based on fear and mistrust of others.
(c) Positive Law: All "rights" and "laws" are man-made rules ever subject to being abolished, embellished, or changed.

 Rights do not come from God, since He does not exist. Society is not here to help us achieve salvation. Worry exclusively on the needs of the poor in the "here and now" because there is no "hereafter."

4.On Cosmology and Meaning: Absurdity
(a) Contingency: All events are pure chance (no ultimate explanations).
(b) Pessimism: The universe is doomed to extinction
(c) Humanism: Man, the center of all things, can face the universe heroically and responsibly with dignity and idealism. (You make your own meaning out of life, in spite of the fact that you know there is no objective meaning and all is doomed to death).

Approximately 40% of Vatican II sect members do not believe in a personal God!! This was published in a book entitled Forming Intentional Disciples: The Path To Knowing and Following Jesus by Sherry Weddell in 2012. People go to church to "find their own way" in a "faith community" that seeks to make everyone feel good.

In 1933, the Humanist Manifesto was signed, outlining these basic tenets. With the Church to fight it, it didn't go very far. In 1973, Humanist Manifesto II was signed, bigger and bolder than before. It stated:

"As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival."
And moreover,
"Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul." Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture."

"In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitative, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered 'evil.' "

With the Church sent underground in 1964, Modernism is moving right along to secular humanism. There was a scathing critique written in 1992 by William Kilpatrick, entitled, Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong. In it he blames the schools for not giving a firm moral foundation to our youth. Mr. Kilpatrick himself got it wrong. It's not that Johnny can't tell right from wrong, Johnny can't be moral. He's a member of the Vatican II sect that sees nothing wrong with doing what feels good as long as you use your "conscience." He has no grace from the True sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice. He is told to conform to the world and not get tied down with small-minded rules. Worry about people in the here and now. Be "good" and go to Heaven with atheists because it really doesn't matter what, if anything, you believe. 

So now, a majority approve of sodomite "marriages," a woman's "right" to kill her baby, and the list goes on and on. Johnny is "Catholic" in name only, and sees no clear right or wrong in anything religiously or morally. Johnny is Christian Grey. 

A Politically Correct Christ And Sanitized Satanism

In 2004, Traditionalist actor/director/producer Mel Gibson released his blockbuster hit The Passion of the Christ. On the movie set, a Traditionalist priest offered the Holy Sacrifice every day, making Christ Himself present at the filming. I saw it on opening day with my best friend Ralph, and we sat in front of two men in their twenties, one of whom was an atheist and had been dragged there to see it by his friend. We heard the one man say to the other, "Do you think this will change your mind about religion?" To which the atheist replied, "Not a chance. It'll just p*ss me off even more." When this moving epic was over, everyone in the theater gave a standing ovation--including the atheist sitting behind us! Ralph was watching the reactions of the people as they left. "A truly life changing experience," he said.

 The problem is not all life changing experiences are good ones. Mel Gibson portrayed the Traditionalist Catholic Faith, and caught nothing but derision from the world for doing it. He was charged with Antisemitism because he left in the line recorded in the Bible, "Let His Blood be upon us and our descendants." The world hates Christ because it's under Satan's dominion. If you follow Christ, you'll be hated even as He was hated before you. Mel made a movie a good life changing experience for many. But how many of us are aware that most of what comes out of the entertainment industry is rife with evil and can have a negative influence on us; sometimes subtle and sometimes profound. Any person with even half a brain will realize the trash movies, TV shows, and music that readily glorify sex perversion, drugs, and blaspheme God. Some come as wolves in sheep's clothing.

The movie, Son of God , released just recently is about a politically correct Christ. That's why the Vatican II sect is gushing over it, unlike their attacks on The Passion of the Christ. That should be your first clue something is amiss. Satan will give you 99.9% of the truth as long as he can get you to swallow the 0.1% falsehood. He is, after all, the "father of lies." In this movie you will be subtlety indoctrinated by the following:

1. THE NOT-SO-GREAT COMMISSION 

 In one scene, re-enacting when Christ and Peter put out in the water and Jesus asks Peter to drop his net, an interesting scenario unfolds. Peter tells Him that they came up empty all night, but at His command he will do as He asks. They catch a multitude of fish. An astonished Peter asks Jesus, "What are we going to do?" Christ replies, "Change the world."  Christ came to found His Church and save souls. He told the Apostles they would become "fishers of men" and to "Go ye therefore to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This PC "Christ" wants to "change the world' like some super-social worker. No mention of converting people to save souls. Proselytism is nonsense after all, and we wouldn't want to offend the Jews, Moslems, and other non-Catholics.

2. THE THIRTEEN DISCIPLES

In the film, there are 13 disciples, and the thirteenth disciple is a woman named Mary (not the Blessed Mother either). Not only is she always with them, but she’s with them in the boat during the storm when Jesus walks on water; she’s with them when they travel privately, though in the Bible, Jesus pulled aside and taught only The Twelve male Apostles. Mary is also very outspoken and often reproves the Apostles to have more faith as it is very apparent her faith is stronger.


During the crucifixion scene when Jesus is being jeered at by the crowd, Mary defends Jesus and shouts“Leave him be!”  The Apostles are depicted as being timid and unfaithful. At the Resurrection, this Mary is the first (and only woman) to enter the empty tomb. She also accompanies Peter and John who later come to the empty tomb to see for themselves. In the Bible, three women go to the tomb early in the morning and are greeted by angels who remind them that Jesus said He would rise on the third day. In the movie, then she and the disciples remember all this on their own. Why not woman priestesses and give women a "greater role in the Church" despite the clear teachings of Christ?

3.THE "RAISING" OF LAZARUS
 Christ brought His friend back from the dead. He wept. He stood outside the tomb of Lazarus and commanded that he come forth. Lazarus comes out of the tomb still wrapped in burial cloth. In the movie, Christ enters the tomb with Martha (Lazarus' sister) and Jesus seems surprised at his friend's death. He then cradles his head and cries as he quotes Scripture and suggests that he come back to life. Lazarus, Jesus, and Martha come out of the tomb together to cheers. A strong woman with an uncertain "Jesus."


4. PHARISEES ARE GOOD GUYS
The Pharisees did not condemn Christ out of jealousy and hatred, but rather out of concern for the Jews receiving harsh treatment from the Romans. "Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil." (Isaiah 5:20)

5. JUDAS WASN'T UNFAITHFUL
 During the Last Supper, Christ has a vision of being betrayed by Judas.Christ then turns to Judas and asks him to betray Him!! Judas refuses but Christ insists! Peter tries to stop Judas, but Jesus says to let him go. If true, what a mockery of the words of Our Lord about the traitor, " It would be better for him had he never been born." (St. Matthew 26:24). But if Judas had no choice he couldn't be held responsible. I guess Judas goes to Heaven with the atheists, too. Any wonder why the Vatican II sect lauds this movie?

So we have a politically correct version of "Christ" who doesn't really want to save anyone from sin (never mentioned in the movie), so conversion--and even His death--are unnecessary. Ironically, in January a movie about the Antichrist entitled Devil's Due, openly proselytizes for Satanism.

From the official movie website:

 Those who change their religious affiliation on Facebook to "Satanism" will get an exclusive offering. What was it for promoting Devil worship? A 16 second "teaser-clip" of the movie.Can you imagine them offering something if you change your affiliation to "Catholicism" or "Christianity"? Why THAT'S Antisemitic

And a final note..the devil was completely dropped from the Son of God movie, allegedly to focus on "Christ." Interestingly, Hollywood eschews the idea of Satan, unless it's made into some perverse "positive spin." The real reason many think Satan was dropped is because the actor who played him, one Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni, looks like the Chief Communist-Baby Killer-Sodomite Supporter of the US--Barack Obama! (See pictures at top of post) Further proof they will edit out anything that resembles the Truth!

 At one time, the movies were a nice place to get away from it all and be entertained. Now, if you're not careful, you may be the one entertaining demons unaware.

Praying To The Damned

The Vatican II sect is about to "canonize" Karol Wotyla (aka "Pope" John Paul II). Given the fact that the pre-Vatican II theologians held canonizations to be infallible, and Wotyla was a manifest heretic (John Paul the Great Apostate), we must conclude that (a) the Church is not infallible, and our Faith is false or (b) the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, but a group of heretics who defected from the Faith and lost their authority as Catholic theologians taught could happen. Lose your Faith in the Church, or find the Church of your Faith in the Traditionalist movement. Simple logic. Unfortunately, the pseudo-Traditionalists of the "recognize and resist" the "pope" crowd (principally the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX), have a hard time with logic. They have a psychological need to cling to a false "pope"  to the point where they will ignore or twist theological principles to serve that need and avoid facing the painful reality of sedevacantism.

A Fr. Gleize,  professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,  has written an article "Santo Subito: Is There a Problem?" in which he attempts to prove that we can decide which canonizations to accept and which to reject. This is perfectly in keeping with the SSPX's grand scheme of picking and choosing what teachings to accept in the name of "Tradition." In answer to Fr. Gleise's query, yes, there's a problem-- and it's the false premises and conclusion of your article. Father's article will be in black and my responses in red. 

I) Admitting Certain Basic Principles

 Fr. Gleize readily admits that canonizations are held to be infallible:
"Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act."

Further, "The common and certain doctrine of the majority of theologians considers canonizations to be infallible. All the treatises published after Vatican Council I (and prior to Vatican II), from Billot to Salaverri, teach it as a common theological doctrine." 

So far, so good.

II) Creating False Premises To Get Past The Basic Principles To Which You Stipulated

Now Father comes up with three premises to get out of facing up to the basic truth that canonizations are infallible declarations declaring the soul of a faithful departed to be in glory, and his virtues worthy of imitation. 

#1--Insufficiency of the procedure

Here, Father claims..."it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters."

He asserts that we are justified to doubt canonizations if a certain procedure is not carried out. However, the Divine assistance of infallibility has never been held by the Church to be dependent upon following a certain preliminary set of actions. He gives no citation for this novel idea. The process of canonization has taken different forms through the centuries, but all that is needed for the declaration to be infallible (according to the First Vatican Council and the teaching of the theologians) is that the pope intends to define a matter of Faith and/or morals as Supreme Teacher of the Church, and he intends to bind the faithful. Decrees of canonization meet this requirement. 


#2---Collegiality 

This is one that leaves you thinking that old adage, "Say what?"

"Until now, we knew the act personally infallible and definitory of the locution ex cathedra, and the decrees of the ecumenical Councils. In the future, we shall have also an act which would be neither personally infallible nor definitory in itself, but the act of the ordinary magisterium of the pope: this act will aim at discerning a doctrine as infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium of the Episcopal college. According to this third mode, the pope acts as a simple interpreter of the collegial magisterium.

Yet, if we look at the new norms promulgated in 1983 by the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of John Paul II, it is clear that, in the precise case of canonization, the pope—according to the needs of collegiality—will exercise his magisterium according to this third mode. If one takes into account both the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of 1983 and the motu proprio, Ad Tuendam Fidem of 1998, when the pope exercises his personal magisterium to proceed to a canonization, it seems as if his will consists in intervening as an organ of the collegial magisterium. This would suggest that the canonizations are not guaranteed by the personal infallibility of the solemn magisterium of the Sovereign Pontiff.

Will it be guaranteed by the ordinary universal magisterium of the episcopal college? Until now, the entire theological tradition has never said that this was the case; it has always considered the infallibility of canonizations as the fruit of a divine assistance granted strictly to the personal magisterium of the pope, assimilated to the locution ex cathedra.

With this, we hold a second motive which authorizes us to doubt seriously of the infallibility of the canonizations realized in concordance with these postconciliar reforms."

Collegiality is a heresy of Vatican II. That aside, Father claims that (a) the pope is allegedly acting as an "organ of the collegial magisterium" but (b) a canonization can only be held as certainly infallible if the pope acts personally. 

As to (a), see if this decree of canonization for "St" Josemaria Escriva sounds like a definitive definition from the pope on a matter of Faith intended to bind the Faithful:

In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, We declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to be a Saint, and We inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And what We have declared, We desire to be in force both now and in the future, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, the sixth day of October, in the two thousand and second year of our Lord, of our Pontificate the twenty-fourth.

I, John Paul
Bishop of the Catholic Church

Certainly sounds that way, doesn't it? But what about objection (b)? "Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed. " (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, 1870). It must be definitively held as true if the "college of bishops" decree it as such in union with the pope. That canonizations are not specifically mentioned as subjects of such is entirely irrelevant. 

#3---Change in the Meaning of "Heroic Virtue"

"The change of the object implies a change of the act. This change of perspective is present in the new theology and the postconciliar magisterium. It omits to distinguish between a common and a heroic sanctity, which is what sanctity consists of: even the term “heroic virtue” appears nowhere in the texts of Vatican II.

After the Council, when the theologians speak of heroic virtue, they have more or less the tendency of defining it by opposition to the simply natural act of virtue, instead of opposing it to the ordinary act of supernatural virtue.

This change of optic is corroborated also when we consider the ecumenical orientation of the sanctity which appeared after Vatican II."

Here, Father declares we can doubt the canonization because "the judgment which guided the procedure was guided by a modernist conception of sanctity and heroic virtue." (Emphasis mine) However, the Church teaches:
"In establishing disciplinary laws for the universal Church, the Church is likewise infallible, in such a way She would never legislate something which would contradict true faith or good morals." (See Zubizaretta,  Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica 1:486,  1948) How then could a true pope legislate that someone is in Heaven and worthy of emulation by the Faithful if their virtue is of a Modernist (heretical) conception, and therefore something that would contradict good morals? 

III) Summary and Conclusion

 Fr.Gleize's article brings forth three false premises to cast doubt on the infallibility of canonizations and thereby hope to save the "papacy" of Francis because he didn't really proclaim Wotyla a saint. He falsely assumes that a certain procedure must be used for the pope to exercise his infallibility. Second, he claims that the pope can act as part of the collegial body of bishops, without exercising his personal infallibility. This is false as (1) the decree of canonization has all the requirements of an ex cathedra papal pronouncement and (2) the Ordinary Magisterium would guarantee their truth anyway as taught by the First Vatican Council and the pre-Vatican II theologians. Third, the Church cannot give that which is evil. A Modernist conception of heroic virtue would never be held up by a true pope as worthy of emulation by the faithful as it is contrary to good morals.

Karol Wotyla is the embodiment of the evils teachings of Vatican II. If Wotyla is a saint, then my patron saint, King St. Louis IX of France was wrong to prohibit false worship in public as it contradicts the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty. If Wotyla is a saint, then St. Thomas Moore was wrong to condemn King Henry VIII's new religion since it contradicts the teaching of Vatican II on ecumenism; that the Protestant sects can be used as a "means of salvation." I could go on, but I think you get the picture. 

The SSPX would have us accept Antipope Francis as a true pope, and then decide which canonizations they will accept or reject. They like Padre Pio, so his canonization must be accepted. They dislike Wotyla, so they invent reasons to reject his "sainthood." This is not how Catholics act. Reject Francis and all his works. It's absurd and blasphemous to think, God help us, that we must try and make sure that the next "saint" to whom we pray, isn't really burning in Hell. 

Francis: Spiritual But Not Religious

Antipope Francis has gone beyond heresy. He's the first leader of the Vatican II sect who espouses what sociologists call a viewpoint that is "spiritual but not religious." Abbreviated as "SBNR," it is the fastest growing worldview in the United States. In 2013, a rabbi had suggested the term "Spiritually Independent" to replace it, as it would sound like those in the political sphere who do not belong to a particular party. Characteristic of the SBNR is the universal disdain for "organized religion." They find the very idea of a "One True Religion" morally repugnant, which is a logical outgrowth of fifty years of Vatican II ecclesiology, that fosters egalitarianism amongst the world's religions. 

 Recently, Traditionalist priest Fr. Anthony Cekada has compared Francis to the late Fred Rogers of the famous (infamous?) Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. The soft spoken Protestant minister would teach children to be "nice" and "good" without any reference to God. But is goodness without God good enough? Apparently, for Modernists like Antipope Francis and the SBNR they inspire, it is more than enough. The SBNR are now ideologically mutating into something known as Moralistic Therapeutic Deism a term introduced in the book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (2005) by sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton. The term (abbreviated MTD) is used to describe what they consider the common religious beliefs among American youth.

How does all this apply to Francis? It's downright scary when you analyse it. According to Smith and Denton, MTD is comprised of five major tenets:                                                                                                1. A God exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.         

   This "god" is not to be confused with the True God, but is rather one who created the universe and the moral order, but is not involved in our daily affairs--especially in those topics we'd rather not have Him around. So when it comes to birth control, abortion, or divorce and remarriage, don't sweat those "small minded rules," He doesn't care. Be nice to a poor person and donate to charity.

 2.     God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions                                                                                       

   Banished is any notion of repentance from sin, keeping Holy the Sabbath, being faithful to daily prayers, or any partisan dogma. "God" may be thought of as Allah, Yahweh, Christ, or anything else. There is no "one True Religion" so "proselytism is nonsense." (of course!)

3.     The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.                     

     The only mortal sin is low self-esteem. Help the poor and "don't worry, be happy" as the old 1980s song tells us. If you're not hurting anybody and it makes you feel good, it must be moral! So "who am I to judge?"

4.     God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem                                                

      God is viewed as a combination between a Divine Butler and a Cosmic Therapist. He's always on call, takes care of problems that arise, makes you feel good about yourself (can anyone sing "Kumbaya" at the Novus Bogus this week?) and never gets too personally involved where you might actually have to develop character through suffering, change your lifestyle, or (horrors!) choose one set of beliefs as True. "There is no Catholic God." 

5.     Good people go to Heaven when they die.                                  

      Who's good? Just about anyone except Traditionalists. Good here equals "nice." There is no Hell, and if there is, probably no one goes there anyway, except for "self-absorbed Neo-Pelagians." After all, doesn't Francis tell us atheists who are good go to Heaven?  

     So for the first time in history, there is a putative "pope" who espouses no particular religion. Antipope Francis is "spiritual but not religious" and espouses the tenets of moralistic therapeutic deism--the logical outgrowth of Vatican II's ecumenism. Sadly, there are hundreds of millions following this popular cult leader to Hell as they walk through the "nice, nice, sweet, sweet" streets of Mr. Bergoglio's Neighborhood  where they will find out too late that goodness without Christ and His One True Church will never be good enough.

A Cure For Sedevacantism?

 A reader left some interesting questions/observations at my last post of 2/16/14. It involves sedevacantists and electing the next pope to end the interregnum. I will reproduce his comments and add my response in red. I would also like to direct the reader to my post of 5/10/13, "Attempting To Replace The Heretical With The Delusional," as I partially addressed that issue there and will reprint parts of it.

My reader comments: This is a serious question. Have sedevacantists (outside the lunatic fringe) ever considered electing their own pope? I don't want to be flippant but the sedevacantists seem not to have the courage of their convictions. After all, according to the sedes, the papal claimants and hierarchy are outside the church. Aren't those still within the church then obligated to elect a pope? They seem to be waiting for a sign or divine intervention, but you know what Our Lord said about those who "seeketh after a sign". The great western schism is always held up as a scandal, but may it really be the proper model for handling such a situation? After all, a true claimant eventually emerged. Why don't the sedes lead a movement to elect a true pope? How could the Almighty be against such a thing if the sede claimant (1) held and defended the faith; and (2) dedicated himself to saving those who have been led into error? By failing to advance a rival claimant to contest the conciliar pope, the sedes seem to be making the conciliar pope's job of destroying the faith much easier. 


The problem with this age of near universal apostasy is that there are no fast and sure answers on how to get out of it and bring back a true pontiff. As Fr. Cekada has written:
 IF THE POST-VATICAN II popes are not true popes, how might the Church one day get a true pope again? Here are some theories:1. Direct Divine Intervention. This scenario is found in the writingsof some approved mystics.2. The Material/Formal Thesis. This holds that should a post-Vatican II pope publicly renounce the heresies of the post-Conciliar Church, he would automatically become a true pope.3. An Imperfect General Council. The theologian Cajetan (1469–1534) and others teach that, should the College of Cardinals become extinct, the right to elect a pope would devolve to the clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church. (de Comparatione13, 742, 745)Each of these seems to present some difficulties. But this should not be surprising, because the precise solution to an unusual problem in the Church cannot always be predicted beforehand.This can be seen from the following comment in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: “No canonical provisions exist regulatingthe authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romanâ impeditâ, i.e. in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; insuch cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history.” (“Cardinal,” CE 3:339) 

Sedevacantists are basically divided into three "camps" so to speak, as to how the pontiff can be brought back:

1. The Divine Interventionists, who are waiting for a miracle from God.

2. The Sedeprivationists who hold to the material/formal thesis. Accordingly, Francis is a material pope, not a formal one. What this means is that he is a place holder, like being elected U.S. president by the electoral college, but impeded from taking the oath of office. You would become president if you could take the oath. Analogously, if Bergoglio were to publicly  abjure his heresies and embrace the Catholic Faith (then getting a valid ordination and consecration from a Traditionalist bishop) he would formally become Pope.

3. The Sedevacantists proper.  This would include those, like myself, who aren't convinced by the material/formal thesis of the sedeprivationists, and think an imperfect general council is the way to go.

 Now I'm sure my reader can see that the problem would lie in getting sedeprivationists (e.g. Bishop Sanborn embraces this view) and divine interventionists to work with sedevacantists proper on an imperfect general council. God has His reasons for doing what He does and His ways are not ours. It will take time to get a general consensus on what to do. In the meantime we hold fast to the Faith. 

Next, my reader says:A few more observations. The sedes (and SSPX for that matter) are always claiming that the conciliar popes and hierarchy believe, teach and do things the church has always condemned. As a result, the sedes (but not the SSPX) conclude that the popes and hierarchy are heretics and outside the church. But I can say the same thing about the sedes! The sedes (and SSPX) have adopted a form of church government the church has never used before - essentially the orthodox model where you have a collection of autocephalous entities that do not take orders from one another. I can say that adopting such a model is heretical - the church is a monarchy not a loose confederation. Those who do not recognize the conciliar pope either explicitly (the sedes) or implicitly (SSPX) are obligated, it would seem to me, to come together and elect their own pope and then, the hard part - TO OBEY HIM. Otherwise, the sedes and SSPX are using a form of church governance NOT instituted by Our Lord. Further, if the sedes and SSPX did elect a Pope and the election was in accordance with the will of the Almighty, those in the conciliar church would be obligated to acknowledge the sede and SSPX pope as the true pope and the conciliar pope for the heretical antipope they always have been, How can a true pope ever emerge if those who hold the faith don't advance one of their own into the fray?

 Once more, it is vital to have a deep knowledge of the Faith in these unprecedented times. The SSPX, who believe that Francis is pope cannot "elect" a "rival pope." There can only be one visible Head of the Church of Christ. To attemp to elect another would be admitting to electing an antipope. As to the charge that we sedevacantists have set up a "church" akin to the Eastern schismatics, this is simply false as proven by the teaching of the Church Herself. According to theologian Dorsch:

  “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

 “Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

 “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

      “These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

It is the teaching of the Church that she can be deprived of a visible Head for for many years and still Her monarchical structure remains.

 In summation, it is prudent to wait and discern the Will of God with patience and in keeping with Church teaching. As I will be writing about in the near future, it is prudent for Traditionalist Bishops to begin talking to each other in some sort of synod and try to work out these problems. Trying to "advance one of our own into the fray" without taking however long as necessary to find the Will of God will give us a dubious "pope" and a cure that is worse than the disease. 

Bishop Williamson Is Infallibly Wrong

Once more Bishop Richard Williamson, expelled from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and now heading up his own order (Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance or SSPX-SO), is trying to refute sedevacantism by offering an interesting argument based on the Church's Infallibility. In his latest e-letter called "Eleison Comments," he claims that Modernists (he calls them "liberals") and sedevacantists (i.e. true Catholics), do not have opposing views, but rather think alike! I summarize his points in black, and comment below in red

 Bp. Williamson proposes this syllogism:
Major Premise: Popes are infallible
Minor Premise: Conciliar popes are liberal
Liberal Conclusion: We must become liberal

First, I'm a bit confused by his use of the term "liberal." This is theology not politics. If he means liberal, as in Modernist, fine. He should use the correct label. Liberalism can also refer to religious indifferentism which is but one aspect of Modernism, "the synthesis of all heresies." His next syllogism follows.

Major Premise: Popes are infallible
Minor Premise: Conciliar popes are liberal
Sedevacantist Conclusion: They (conciliar popes) cannot be popes

So far, he seems to get it. "Seems" is the key word. If Jorge Bergoglio is pope, then he can't be a liberal, (i.e. Modernist or Indifferentist) as this would be heresy. Therefore, all appearances and logic to the contrary, what Francis teaches must be Catholic truth and we must follow him.....OR if he is liberal, then his claims to the contrary, Francis is an Antipope. But wait! Bp.Williamson informs us that the problem lies not in the minor premise (the bishop ADMITS the post- Vatican II "popes" are heretics!) or in the logic but in the Major premise, by putting "authority above truth." Huh?

God gave his Churchmen the freedom to err. At Vatican II the Church error (!) went a long way without God allowing His Church to be wholly defectible. Conciliar popes have told many Catholic truths alongside Conciliar errors.

Wow. OK, so the Church can teach error, just not a whole lot of error! Martin Luther himself could have been pope since he taught some Catholic truth alongside his errors. Being Catholic is an all or nothing proposition. If you deny even one truth of faith, or oppose it by teaching something to the contrary, you cease to be Catholic.

How then does someone find the truth? If you look with an upright heart, God will lead you, and Tradition is where you will find the truth. Popes don't make Tradition true, they make it certain by their Extraordinary Magisterium. Archbishop Lefebvre preferred unerring Tradition to erring Popes. Tradition is found in the Ordinary Magisterium. Sedevacantists underestimate the truth, overestimate the popes, and can be tempted to quit the Church altogether.

I met Bp. Williamson in 1985 when he was just Fr. Williamson. He was arrogant and full of himself. He also proves (again and again) that he can't think on his own, but must idolize his ordaining/consecrating Archbishop. Bp.Williamson never cites to relevant authority to back up his novel and strange assertions. Any serious look at what was taught by the theologians before Vatican II, will quickly dispel his nonsensical drivel.

Tradition is to be found in the Ordinary Magisterium? Then, by your own admission, Your Excellency, Vatican II is part of Tradition because it is taught by the Ordinary Magisterium! According to theologian Tanquerey, "The ordinary and universal magisterium is that which is carried on daily through the continuous preaching of the Church among all peoples. It includes: 1. The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate  Body of Bishops..." (See Tanquery, A.,  Manual of Dogmatic Theology 1:177, Emphasis in original). The preaching and proclamations of the bishops at Vatican II, and continuously preached throughout the world by them since then, meets the definition for the heresies of  Vatican II to be part of Tradition. This simply cannot be, as the Church is protected from ALL error, not just SOME error and God gives us a teaching authority for just that purpose. The idea of having God give us a Church that teaches truth alongside error, and then leaves it up to us individually to go around discerning what is true and what is false is so bizarre that I can only wonder how Williamson came up with it. Fr. Cekada gave us two issues that need to be confronted and refuted, if sedevacantism is to be proven false. 

   1. Fact. Certain pronouncements of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar popes on religious liberty, ecumenism and various other doctrinal matters appear to contradict, sometimes word for word, previous Church teachings, or appear to propose as true certain teachings which the Church has condemned in the past. Those who adhere to the sedevacantist position would contend that such pronouncements represent a public defection from the Catholic faith.

2. Law. According to church law, public defection from the Catholic faith automatically deprives a person of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold. Theologians and canonists such as St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez, Torquemada, and Wernz and Vidal maintain, without compromising the doctrine of papal infallibility, that even a pope may himself become a heretic and thus lose the pontificate. (Some of these authors also maintain that a pope can become a schismatic.) This possibility is recognized even by an authoritative commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
"Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy, or schism. If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicized manner, he would break communion, and according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto. (c. 194 §1, 2º ). Since no one can judge the pope (c.1404) no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election." (James A. Corridan et al. editors, The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America [New York: Paulist 1985], c. 333.)

If Bp. Williamson wants to show the sedevacantist position false he must either (1) show that the teachings of Vatican II, the post-conciliar "popes" and the corporate body of bishops have not taught heresy, or (2) in spite of their heresy (and the teaching of the Church on the loss of office through the profession of heresy) they nevertheless retained their authority--and it's on him to demonstrate how.  

Bishop Williamson, you underestimate the importance of the knowledge of Church teaching, overestimate the importance of Archbishop Lefebvre, write shoddy screeds bereft of relevant citations to Church law/teaching, and make up wacko ideas about the nature of the Church. In so doing it is you, and not  sedevacantists, that runs the danger of placing yourself extra ecclesiam, where we all know there is nulla salus. Kyrie eleision on you.