In Medio Stat Veritas

 Most of what is wrong with the world occurs when people cling to an extreme on either side of a spectrum regarding behaviors or belief. On a practical level, I have a friend who can tell you the exact day and hour he will retire. He virtually has his entire life mapped out in his daily planner. If something unforeseen changes his schedule, he is visibly upset for days. I have another friend who makes no provisions for his future, doesn't know what he'll be doing from one day to the next, and when life throws him a problem, he runs to me for help. Neither is a good way to live.

 One Protestant preacher, Mr. Barger, recently commented that Antipope Francis' June prayer meeting with the Jews and Moslems was "ecumenism's finest hour." He meant it as a condemnation, and he is correct. Barger later goes on to discuss his "reckless statement" about atheists going to Heaven. ("Reckless" is far too charitable a word). Then, Mr. Barger's own heresy comes forth:

... if I were a Roman Catholic I would be most disturbed by the pope's comments. After all, why should a Catholic strive to carry out all of the works-oriented ordinances that Catholicism demands just to hear their leader, the alleged mouthpiece for God in the world, announce that, like them, the atheists are redeemed (i.e. "saved")? Won't many Catholics take it that, by adding enough good works to their life's portfolio, in reality he or she could have lived like the devil and still have made it through the Pearly Gates in the end? Isn't Pope Francis signaling that Catholics can actually indulge in any and every worldly pleasure, vice, or conceivable darkness and ignore all the RCC rules? Just add enough good works and like the atheists, pagan Catholics can make it to Paradise in the end? Why toe the line in abiding with the many rules and rituals that Romanism has saddled its people with? Though I can imagine that the confession booth might be noticeably empty as a result of the pope's May 22 sermon, let's pray that Catholics abandon the rituals of Rome and come to true saving faith that depends solely on Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice for them.

I can't blame Mr. Barger, a life-long Protestant, for thinking the Vatican II sect is the Roman Catholic Church. His big mistake is thinking that you can "live like the devil" and yet get to Heaven with "good works."Which is it? How can one be a self-serving heathen, yet have meritorious good works? What Mr. Barger doesn't realize is that Francis and his Modernist brethren have emptied the traditional rules of the Church of all their substance. "Who am I to judge" if sodomy is a sin? Let's give "communion" to notorious adulterers. Good works in Francis-speak means being a "nice guy/gal." Nice by the world's standards, so as not to get bogged down with "narrow-minded rules."

Mr. Barger doesn't appreciate that his "justification by Faith alone" (sole fide) is the real licence to sin. He exhorts Catholics (sic) to "abandon the ritual of Rome" and rely on "saving faith that depends solely on Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice for them." If my faith in Jesus as "my personal Lord and Savior" is all I need, I can't lose my place in Heaven no matter what I do. As Martin Luther said, "Sin boldly, but believe more boldly." Here, you can actually know something is evil, choose to do it (the requirements for mortal sin) and yet get to Heaven because you believe in Jesus ("Do I hear Amen, my brothers and sisters?"). Of course, Mr. Barger will counter by saying if someone TRULY believes they would not want to offend God.  Nice try, but if someone is intellectually convinced that Jesus is Lord, they are impeccable? Where does their private interpretation of Scripture teach that doctrine? Since they jettison all distinction between venial and mortal sin, wouldn't the mass murderer be just as "saved" as the one who tells "little white lies" provided they both believe in Jesus?

 One Protestant told me God would "chastise" a Christian who habitually sins by cutting short their life. I asked him, "But they still go to Heaven because they believe, right?" "Of course, once saved always saved," was his response. "How then is that a 'chastisement' since being in Heaven is better than being on Earth? Isn't it a reward? If no sin can cause you to lose salvation, why not commit suicide and get to Heaven faster?" He had no response. The bottom line is that Protestantism, by its heretical notion of faith, gives the green light to doing whatever you please without consequence. Conversely, Mr. Begoglio, by denigrating the True Faith and replacing true morals with "being nice" has the same effect. Having too much sugar in your blood (hyperglycemia) and having too little (hypoglycemia) both have the same end result---death.

 There's an old Latin adage, "In medio stat veritas", i.e. "in the middle is the Truth." In the middle of Mr. Barger's "salvation by faith alone" and Mr. Begoglio's "just be a nice guy" lies the Truth of the Catholic Faith where the role of True faith and role of good works is spelled out in the Council of Trent. Stay in the middle with the Truth or else you will inevitably get pulled into the extremes where awaits the Father of Lies and your eternal demise.

The Primary Problem

 In California, old time Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman (pro-abortion, pro-sodomite politician) decided to retire from office. That's the good news. In the Democratic primary to replace him, one Marianne Williamson ran (unsuccessfully) to take his seat. The fact that she was well received and was a serious contender should send chill's down one's spine if you aren't a total apostate. Who is Marianne Williamson?

 Born July 8, 1952, Williamson is a self-proclaimed "New Age guru." She has published ten books, including four New York Times #1 bestsellers. She has sold more than 3,000,000 copies of her books. A college drop out, Williamson wanted to be a cabaret singer, but when that didn't pan out, she open a "metaphysical bookstore" wherein she became encompassed by New Age  religion and philosophy. In 1990, she had her only child (a daughter named India) by a man whose identity she refuses to reveal, and calls herself an "unwed Jewish mother." Williamson bases her teaching and writing on a set of books called A Course in Miracles, a self-study program of "spiritual psychotherapy", based on universal spiritual themes.These books were "channeled" by the author, Helen Schucman (meaning she was possessed by demonic forces). (Some info from Wikipedia)

 Most recently, Williamson is also the force behind Sister Giant, a series of seminars and teaching sessions that provides women with the information and tools needed to be political candidates. Through these seminars, she encourages women to run for office and align their politics with their decidedly New Age "spiritual values." (Christian values would allegedly violate the First Amendment, but the ACLU is conspicuously absent when New Ageism is espoused).  Williamson was supported and funded by the New Age "queen" Oprah Winfrey.

Not since Shirley MacLaine has any single person done so much to promote and normalize New Age mysticism to the public, as has Oprah. Her biggest venture is promoting Eckhart Tolle, a German "mystic" who resides in Vancouver, British Columbia.
According to Tolle himself, his influences include:

•  Sufism, which is a mystical form of Islam

• Zen Buddhism

•  The Australian turned Hindu mystic, Barry Long whose teaching includes 20 books most of which focus in detail about sexuality between man and woman and its use to purify them both and rid them of personal, human love.

•  Tolle acknowledges that his teachings are a synthesis of the teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, one of the most famous of Hindu Yogi's and J. Krishnamurti. (Krishnamurti was once declared the "Messiah" and was proclaimed as the new incarnation of the Maitreya Buddha by the Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society.)

• The aforementioned A Course in Miracles.

   When asked during a webcast how she has reconciled Tolle's spiritualist teachings with her previous Christian background Oprah responded as follows.

"I've reconciled it because I was able to open my mind about the, ah, absolute, indescribable hugeness of that which we call 'God.' Ah, I took God out of the box, cause, I grew up in the Baptist church and there were you know, rules and belief systems, doctrine. And, I happened to be, ah, sitting in church in my late twenties, and I was going to this church where you had to get there at eight o'clock in the morning or you couldn't get a seat and a very charismatic minister, and everybody was, you know, into the sermon. And this great minister was preaching about how great God was and how omniscient and omnipresent and God is everything. And then he said 'The Lord thy God is a jealous God.' And I was, you know, caught up in the rapture of that moment until he said 'jealous.' And, something struck me, I was I think about twenty-seven or twenty-eight, I was thinking, 'God is all. God is omnipresent and God’s also jealous? God is jealous of me?' Something about that didn't feel right in my spirit because I believe that God is love, that God is in all things. And so, that's when the search for something more than doctrine began to stir within me."

Oprah then asks her guru, Eckhart Tolle, what happens to humans at death. Tolle responds "I don't give it any thought." Oprah further pontificates that "God, in the essence of all consciousness, isn't something to believe. God is! God 'is' and God is a feeling experience not a believing experience. And if your religion is a believing experience, if God for you is still about a belief, then it's not truly God." (See, e.g. Edwin W. Lutzer, Oprah, Miracles, and The New Earth Moody Publishers 2009).

  Now compare what Pope St. Pius X  wrote in his great encyclical Pascendi about Modernist teaching:
"Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated. Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment. Therefore, since God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances, cannot, of itself, appertain to the domain of consciousness; it is at first latent within the consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its roots lies hidden and undetected.

Should anyone ask how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself grows up into a religion, the Modernists reply thus: Science and history, they say, are confined within two limits, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these boundaries has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within in the subconsciousness, the need of the divine, according to the principles of Fideism, excites in a soul with a propensity towards religion a certain special sentiment, without any previous advertence of the mind: and this sentiment possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the reality of the divine, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sentiment to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this it is which they consider the beginning of religion." (para. #7).

  Modernism, like it's cousin, New Ageism, teaches that religion is a search for spiritual feelings - but not absolute truth. For experiences - but without foundation. Now the same people who hijacked the Church are slowly infiltrating all areas of government. The Vatican II sect did nothing to warn people of Williamson's candidacy, and why would they do that? Their end goal is the same, and propelled by by the same Satanic ideology, just repackaged a little differently. Some Protestant preachers warned people about Marianne Williamson, and she came up short--this time. We can never prevail unless and until we realize that the primary problem is not the elections but the false doctrines of Vatican II which unleashed the powers of Hell.

Consecrated To The Service Of God And Ordained To Fight Vatican II

 Traditionalist Catholics are often accused of being members of a "small cult." H.L. Mencken once observed, "A cult is any religion except for my own." While I do not hesitate to call Protestants, the adherents of Vatican II, and any other false system a "sect" (in opposition to the One True Church), I will not call them a "cult." Originally, the word cult signified a means of worship and the Church Herself applied it to the liturgy. Now it is used in a pejorative manner for any religious activity someone doesn't like. The term does, and should, have a restricted meaning for those organizations which use coercion to get and/or keep members.

  According to Janja Lalich, Ph.D. and  Michael D. Langone, Ph.D., there are several characteristics of a cult some of which are:

• The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
• ‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
• ‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
• ‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
• ‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.(See http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm)

 Using this as a guide, we can call Scientology a cult, but not the Vatican II sect. Ironically, some members of the Vatican II sect refer to Traditionalists as a "cult." The reason is clear: We believe in objective truth, and we possess it exclusively.

Is there such a thing as objective truth - truth which has always been and always will be the same - unchanging and constant - hence a truth which is absolute? Now, either words have meaning or they don't. If truth is only a matter of personal taste, if one is convinced that all reality is relative, there is hardly any point in continuing either discussion or search for truth. One is caught in the self-contradiction of proclaiming that the only truth there is---is that there is no truth. Unless we deny all logic and meaning we must conclude that Truth, as such, exists. Such a statement may seem puerile to a Traditionalist, but once an agnostic admits the possibility of truth, he is logically committed to seeking and adhering to this entity.

 Once we accept the possibility of objective truth we can seek it out from only three possible sources. These are 1) the ancient and always constant Truths embodied in the Catholic Religion and demonstrated by right reason; 2) our own or someone else's gut feelings or psychological experiences as to what is true; and 3) some mixture of these two extremes. Either we accept objective criteria, or we accept subjective criteria, or we create a mixture of the two that for some reason or another we find personally satisfactory.  We see here displayed the spectrum between Traditional Catholicism which offers us objectively defined truths, the beliefs of modern man which approach absolute subjectivity and Protestantism which is a mixture of some objective truths combined with subjective opinions. Vatican II, with its novel doctrine on religious liberty, places the post-Conciliar position on the nature of truth in the middle or modern category for it proclaims that man is free to believe anything he wants and that his very dignity lies in this freedom. How can man's dignity lie in his freedom to believe error?

 But, the Vatican II sect will protest, if you're Catholics, then why are there so many splinter groups? Your just like Protestants. I've dealt with this charge before in other posts. It's glib, but it doesn't get you very far. Without a pope, it's only natural that when the Shepard is struck, the sheep will be scattered. We DO agree on far more than we don't agree. The Vatican II sect, which has an alleged pope, has disunity and there should be NONE. Ask any three Traditionalist priests if homosexuality is always wrong, or what is Transubstantiation, and you will get three identical answers. Ask the same of three Vatican II sect "priests" and you will likely get three different answers, depending on whether they are "conservative," "moderate," or "liberal." 

 The reason for my post today is to suggest something bold for Traditionalists. One way we could get more united to see our way through this time of the Great Apostasy, is to have universal recognition of each others Orders. All Traditionalist clergy, ordained after Vatican II obtain their Apostolic Succession from one of three Episcopal Lineages: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (SSPX and SSPX-SO), Archbishop Peter Thuc (CMRI), and Bishop Alfred Mendez (SSPV). 

 Due to bickering and pride, some question the validity of the other lines. The Society of St Pius V (SSPV) will not recognize those ordained/consecrated by Thuc. The Society of St Pius X-Strict Observance (SSPX-SO) will recognize only Vatican II orders (!) and their own. They shun SSPV and CMRI. To their credit CMRI will recognize all three lineages. Rather than get bogged down with the reasons behind the "doubts" that were cooked up, I have a suggestion:

1. Have Bishop Santay (SSPV), Bishop Pivarunas (CMRI), and Bishop Williamson (SSPX-SO) begin talking to each other via Skype to work out some differnces.
2. To prevent any  further aspersions against their Orders, IN AN ACT OF SUPREME HUMILITY FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS, agree to meet and a designated place and time to conditionally re-ordain and conditionally re-consecrate each other! 
3. In this way, those who only recognize the Lefebvre lineage would now have to recognize the other two. Likewise, the Mendez and Thuc devotees, would have to recognize the other two lines.
4. By achieving mutual recognition, Traditionalists will inch closer to the day when perhaps we can get as close to a unified front until the papacy is restored.
5. Perhaps, in so doing, we would hasten the day when a pope comes to replace His Holiness Pope Pius XII (d. 1958).

 I urge any Traditionalists who read my blog to bring this to the attention of your priests (and even Bishop) to let them ponder the potential good that could come from this act. I also wish to thank my friend Mike at www.dailycatholic.org for discussing this issue with me. He's a man strong in the true Faith. (Please say a prayer for the repose of the soul of his dear wife Cyndi, who recently passed.) There are those who say the fate of the Church is in God's Hands. True enough. But as St. Teresa of Avila observed, "God has no hands but ours." (Lit. "Yours are the hands, with which He blesses all the world.")

A Hunger For God

 On May 23, 2014, Elliot Rodger, a disturbed 22-year-old filled with pent up rage over being spurned by women, went on a rampage, leaving seven dead and several others wounded in Santa Barbara, California. Elliot Rodger was the son of the assistant director for The Hunger Games movies. Ironically, The Hunger Games are largely the glorification of young people killing each other at an annually televised death match, orchestrated by a totalitarian regime. The secular media has been quick to point the blame at misogyny and mental illness as the driving force behind Rodger's murderous killing spree.

   Truth be told, Rodger was sick, but the postmodernist culture which rejects God, and the Vatican II sect which has robbed humanity of our connection to the Creator, only makes good people bad, and sick people worse. I will now explore what I believe led to the tragedy.

1. A Background Of Violence

 Let's consider what we call "entertainment" in this country, and peddled to children.

 In The Hunger Games (a trilogy of books, now movies, which Rodger's father helped to make), we find there are two major themes – rebellion and murder. The story-line is that the post-Apocalyptic Capitol (formerly North America) holds an annual televised event called “The Hunger Games.” Each district must draw the names of a boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18. There were originally 13 districts before the Capitol destroyed one, leaving 12. Altogether, there are 24 youths chosen to become contestants (called “tributes”). They must fight to the death in a vast arena. The lone survivor returns home to wealth and fame.
 Michael Graham, at his blog "The Natural Truth" summarizes the books/movies very well:

"They are ridiculously, and unnecessarily cruel.  If your idea of “escapist fiction” is to watch kids stab, shoot, strangle, poison, chop and bludgeon each other to death—this is the book series for you. If you like reading books about young people getting starved, tortured, burned and maimed—your dream has come true!  If you think your 10-year-old should spend her (tween girls are the target demo for these books) time reading about their “heroine” plotting to murder people—and then doing so, graphically and cruelly—you got it in The Hunger Games.

I talked to the mother of a 12-year-old yesterday who is taking her daughter to see The Hunger Games this weekend. Her daughter read the first book at age 10 and, while Mom acknowledge that, yes, “the books are a little cruel and violent,” she was glad her daughter read them because “she needs to learn what the world is really like.”

Uh, no. No, it’s not.  We live in a stupid and sometimes cruel world, but we don’t kidnap people’s kids, give them axes, bows and swords and then put them on national TV to watch them kill each other.  We don’t watch people have their flesh ripped off by acid or getting ripped apart by backs of genetically-altered dogs for fun.

What we DO do, apparently, is take our 10-year-old kids to movies so THEY can watch all this “fun.”"
(See http://michaelgraham.com/what-is-ldquo-the-hunger-games-rdquo/)

  Think about it: if this garbage were called "The Rape Games" where the contestants have to avoid getting raped in order to win, do you really think it would be popular? NOW would be decrying it as misogynistic and portraying violence against women as acceptable. It escapes them that if torturing someone to death is seen as "entertainment" then rape appears almost tame in comparison. Welcome to the home life of Elliot Rodger.

2. Hate-filled Hearts Without God.

 Rodger belonged to an "Anti-Pick-Up Artists" site called PUAHate.com, where men denounce and deplore the women who rejected them. Last year, Rodger posted this message on the site:

"If you could release a virus that would kill every single man on Earth, except for yourself because you would have the antidote, would you do it? You will be the only man left, with all the females. You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Imagine how satisfying that would be.”

 After the killings, several members called Rodger a "hero." Not surprisingly, over 90% of "MRAs" (i.e. "Men's Rights Activists") are atheists (See http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2014/04/13/but-how-do-you-know-the-mras-are-atheists/)

 3. Satanic-Spawned Lust
   Elliot Rodger’s worldview was shaped by popular media with the constant glorification of “hooking up,” in such movies as Love & Other Drugs (a woman has casual sex with a pharmaceutical salesman and finds "love"), What's Your Number (after hearing a statistic that women who have TWENTY sexual partners will never marry, the "protagonist" Ally, puts a cap on her nineteen sex partners. She goes back and searches for all of her 19 exes, to find "the one."), and Friends With Benefits (two friends decide to have casual sex without the "emotional attachments" of marriage). People who remain celibate and single are ridiculed in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Christianity is mocked as a man gives up casual sex as "penance" for Lent (!) in 40 Days and 40 Nights. Is it any wonder young men and women feel odd and "abnormal" if they're not heathens by the time they graduate college? In contrast, the Bible and Church teaching makes it clear that singleness can be a desirable gift from the Lord. In fact, the apostle St. Paul reveals that the single person is even more blessed than his or her married friends if his or her focus is on the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:6, 8, 25-39). The Council of Trent dogmatically defined that virginity and consecrated celibacy is superior to the state of marriage.

4. A Life Without God

 Rodger left a 137 page "manifesto" entitled "My Twisted World." In Rodger’s thoroughly godless manifesto he mentions, “They took me to church a few times and I hated it.” The only "god" he mentions is himself:

“I am the closest thing there is to a living god…I will truly be a powerful god, punishing everyone I deem to be impure and depraved.”

 Elliot Rodger rejected God and moral absolutes ("Who am I to judge?") and therefore, like every other atheist, had no moral compass based on objective morality to guide his life. He was left with nothing but his  own wicked heart; permeated by  feelings of lust, envy, jealousy and hatred, all fueled by the demonic forces in our world. Elliot Rodger desperately needed Christ, but if he went to the local Vatican II parish, He would not be there. The Real Presence is no more. The Mass and sacraments are gone. Antipope Francis tells us atheists can go to Heaven, so why even bother to look for the only answer that gives life meaning? I'm not suggesting that Rodger didn't have mental health problems, but the evil of  this world, and the lack of Grace from the eclipse of the True Church, is a recipe for making a bad situation a million times worse.
 The hunger for God and His One True Church is no game.

Murder Can Be Fun

   I'm a middle-aged man who has been around the block more than a few times. I have always been a right to life activist and, in my younger days, I took on the world. I really didn't think there was anything left about the horror of abortion that could shock me. I was wrong. My attention was brought to a video made by one Emily Letts; the contents of which are so disturbing, I could only shake my head in disbelief.

   Let me warn my readers that the video is disturbing; it does not show the mangled body of the murdered unborn child, but the mind of a woman who views abortion as "positive" and even "fun." Entitled "Emily's Abortion Video" it can be found here:  http://youtu.be/OxPUKV-WlKw. Ms. Letts is a self-described "patient advocate" who got pregnant and decided to film her own child being murdered---her "positive abortion experience." As I stated before, you will not see the true horror of abortion. Instead, you will view Letts smiling and giggling about getting pregnant, and telling everyone that she "wasn't ready to have a baby."

   The secular media extols the "virtue" of contraception. Here we see the wisdom of the True Church. When sex is cut off from procreation, pleasure comes before---and in place of--- life. Life is cheap, and if your contraception fails (or you don't even bother to use it), you can always have a "nice, safe abortion." It's never safe for the child who gets killed, but that's another story.

   During the actual abortion, all we see is the face of Letts as she thanks her wonderful hired killers ("doctors") and smiles about "how lucky she is" to be there. When the murder is finished she says, "Cool!" and "Yea! I'm done" as she gets wheeled out of the abortuary. You would think she was 13 years old and just got her ears pierced, not taken a human life.

   Then we see Letts a few days later telling us how the murder of her child has positively impacted her life and how she feels no regret nor sadness. The most unsettling part is when she states, “I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby. I can make a life. I knew what I was doing was right because it was right for me, and no one else.” Like a true sociopath, she talks about making life and doesn't wince at the logical conclusion that she ended it. Only if abortion is NOT the taking of life can it be moral. Here, like a modern day Hitler, she acknowledges the fact of life and then rejoices in its destruction. It was "right for me and no one else." Was it right for her now dead child? "True for me, but not for you," is the motto of our moral relativists. So if a white man owns slaves prior to the Civil War, it's OK for him, but not for you, so don't try to force "your morals" on him. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave.

   To those who think Letts is an "extremist," ALL abortion is extreme. Just like slavery and genocide. There is no way to allow "a little bit of murder." The political leftists have all come out in favor of the video and denounced the fact that Letts received large volumes of "hate mail." Imagine that! Maybe I could make a video of myself clubbing a baby seal to death and then claim I'm a victim when people decry my actions as cruelty to animals.

   In reality we are all victims of Vatican II. When the True Mass and sacraments were destroyed, and moral teachings replaced with "feel good about yourself" platitudes, we raised a generation like Emily Letts. A generation that sees nothing wrong as long as you follow your conscience, no matter how misinformed that conscience may be. People who recognize no law above themselves. As Satanist Aleister Crowley stated, "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

   Until recently, the Vatican II sect at least paid lip service to stopping abortion. Now Antipope Francis tells us not to be concerned with those "narrow-minded rules." When murder is no big deal, is it any wonder some sick woman finds it "positive" and even "fun" (giggle, giggle)? Let's turn our attention to the really important moral issues, like youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old, and please disregard the dead  bodies of the aborted babies in the trash can. God help us.

Extra Terram Nulla Salus?

   Traditionalists have been painted by more than a few as being people who are out of touch. They don't conform to the modern world, they are conspiracy nuts, and they are bigoted (usually claiming antisemitism). I must admit, I unfortunately have met a few of my fellow believers who do a disservice to both themselves and the True Church when the obsess over private revelations (i.e., Fatima or some obscure apparition), and see groups of enemies conspiring at every moment against True Catholics.

   Conforming to the modern world, in things contrary to Faith and Morals is something we should avoid at all costs, and hold out our non-conformity as a badge of honor. The charge of antisemitism, when founded upon the Teaching of the Church (i.e., Jews must convert to be saved, they are guilty of Deicide, etc.) is unfounded. Such things are based upon love and concern for the salvation of souls, and firmly rooted in the teaching of Christ. One can see that in an extended period of sedevacante, there will be natural divisions to problems since there is no one in authority to whom we can "kick it upstairs" and pronounce a final, binding judgement.  This explains the excessive theorizing on the part of Traditionalists causing internal strife and the unfounded charge of us being splintered "like Protestants." The Vatican II sect does claim to have a "pope," however, and their desire to link together everything false (even when contradictory) is really strange. You have different groups teaching different, and even contradictory doctrines, and both are accepted as long as they all submit to the heresies of Vatican II.  Frankie, rather than settling matters in favor of one teaching or another, makes things worse.

   Proof came this past week when Antipope Francis claimed he would baptize Martians if they asked for the sacrament. Time magazine was quick to point out that Frankie was saying something "to keep his audience interested" but it was being taken out of context. Or was it? The Vatican’s chief astronomer, Argentine Jesuit "Father" José Funes, explained the possibility of extraterrestrial life in 2008, when he too said that God’s mercy could be offered to aliens if it were needed. He even cited Pope Francis’ namesake to make his point. “This is not in contrast with the faith, because we cannot place limits on the creative freedom of God,” Funes said. “To use St. Francis’ words, if we consider earthly creatures as ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters,’ why can’t we also speak of an ‘extraterrestrial brother?’” (See http://time.com/99616/for-pope-francis-its-about-more-than-martians/)

  There are many problems with what was said from a theological perspective. First, does the alien life form require baptism? What if their ancestors never sinned and they were not in need of redemption like the human race? God may have other designs for them. If they were in original sin, why did Christ die on our planet, and how did He bring the Church to their world?  While these are certainly fascinating theological topics for a hypothetical debate, what Frankie was implying was actually quite sinister.  He used the Martian quip as a metaphor for baptizing the infants of fornicators living in sin, and sodomite "couples."

 According to theologian Schulze, baptism should be withheld from an infant (outside the immediate danger of death) unless there is good reason to believe the child will be raised, educated, and remain in the Catholic Faith (See Schulze, Frederick, Manual of Pastoral Theology, B. Herder Books, St. Louis, Mo., pgs. 11-13, (1931)).  This is the constant teaching of the Church. Now, Frankie doesn't care about the child's eternal welfare. Why should he care? Doesn't he believe that even atheists can go to Heaven? If you can get to Heaven without the integral Catholic Faith how much less necessary is baptism? What kind of instruction--and what kind of example--- will a child receive in the Faith from parents who shack up, or worse, are perverts?

 Ironically, the members of the Vatican II sect Saint Benedict's Center (both the one in Massachusetts and the one in New Hampshire) remain staunch Feeneyites, i.e. adherents of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney who rejected the teaching of the Church of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood and was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1953. Here you have two communities that recognize Frankie as "pope," yet while he denigrates baptism to the point of making it a joke, the Feenyites damn everyone to Hell without water baptism and require submission to the very man who claims you can get to Heaven with NO FAITH at all!
 As a matter of fact, Vatican II sect "canon lawyer," a layman named Pete Vere, has written an opinion (in his capacity as a canon lawyer) that makes a good case that members of the Vatican II sect can hold to the "strict view" of Fr. Feeney without being heretics. He writes:

"In 1988, Mr. John Loughnan, a layman from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine,
wrote the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) requesting clarification on several
controversies surrounding the SSPX. Mr. Loughnan also inquired as to the status within the
Church of Fr. Feeney’s followers.

Concerning this last question, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, replied to Mr.
Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by
the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church
and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not
judge it opportune to enter into this question.”

While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died
in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his
same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly
within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to
oversee the reconciliation and well-being of traditionalists (sic) within the Church.

On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual
descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of
the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical
practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the
good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS(Outside the Church No Salvation), BOB (Baptism of Blood) and BOD (Baptism of Desire)."

 There you have it folks! You can be a heretic at both ends of the spectrum--deny BOD and BOB--or extend it to everyone, and you can be a good member of the Vatican II sect as long as you accept Frankie and the robber council Vatican II. You can get a side chapel in the One World Religion of Antipope Francis as long as you are a heretic, schismatic, infidel, pagan or apostate. We Traditionalists who alone possess the Truth are excluded, Deo gratias! I had the misfortune of getting a nasty missive over my last post from a member of the Vatican II sect. He claimed I had "no authority" to declare the Novus Bogus "mass" invalid. I asked him if he saw a priest attempt to say Mass using milk and cookies in place of bread and wine, could he know that the mass was invalid, or would he need someone in authority to tell him it was invalid and consider it valid until there was such a declaration. He refused to answer, knowing I had just proven his assertion incorrect.

 If he claimed he needed someone in authority to tell him it was invalid, that means that virtually anything, no matter how adverse to Catholic teaching, could be perpetrated on the faithful. If he said it was invalid without being declared as such by someone in authority, he just proved his own contention incorrect. Then he went into a tirade about "joos" and how I'm an "apostate" from "Jew York." When I pointed out that his antisemitism would be roundly condemned by his "pope" who wore a yarmulke in Argentina and prayed with the Jews in the synagogue, thus committing apostasy, he went on another rant about Jews, and how Frankie's soul was not his concern. When I informed him such an individual could not become pope, he denied it. I asked for citations to back up his assertion, and he claimed Pope St. Pius X, but he could not state from whence this alleged teaching came. I even invited him to debate online, and he (of course) refused.

 Once again the insanity of Vatican II is displayed. You can be a real antisemitic person as long as you accept "Pope" Frankie, who prays with Jews in an act directly contrary to the Faith. If you're Bishop Williamson and reject the errors of Vatican II, you will be roundly condemned for questioning the exact number of Jews killed in the Holocaust and the manner in which they were killed.

 What advice would I give to a Traditionalist if an extraterrestrial came to him? Well, DO try to convert him by sending him to a Traditionalist bishop to assess the situation. (Notice Frankie never said he would try to convert the aliens, but give them baptism "only if they ask"). Most importantly, tell him to stay away from the Antipope at all costs. "ET don't phone Rome."

Satan And Vatican II At Harvard

 In 1951, political pundit William F. Buckley, Jr. released his best known book entitled God and Man at Yale. Buckley wrote the book based on his experiences as an undergraduate at Yale University, and he forcefully argued that the professors pushed a secular left-wing ideology on the students by breaking down their religious beliefs through their teaching. This week, the Harvard Extension School Cultural Studies Club wanted the Satanic Temple (a group of Satanists) to perform a "black mass" on the Harvard campus as a means of fostering "multiculturalism."

  Harvard's president, Dr. Drew Faust (yes, that is her real name), refused to cancel the event, citing freedom of speech. “The decision to proceed is and will remain theirs,” she said of the student group. Faust added, “It is deeply regrettable that the organizers of this event, well aware of the offense they are causing so many others, have chosen to proceed with a form of expression that is so flagrantly disrespectful and inflammatory.” Notice she did not decry it as evil, but simply "disrespectful." After a petition signed by tens of thousands in Massachusetts was presented to the university (not to mention a public rebuke by "Cardinal" O'Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston), Faust still would not cancel the event, but said she would attend a holy hour sponsored by the Archdiocese  "...to demonstrate that the most powerful response to offensive speech is not censorship, but reasoned discourse and robust dissent.” At the last moment, amid death threats, the event was cancelled by the student group without further comment.

 In order to fully understand what went on, several questions need to be answered: (1) What is the "Satanic Temple" and what do they believe? (2) What did they plan to do at the "black mass"? (3) What is the true Catholic teaching to be applied and how does it compare with the teaching of Vatican II?

 I. What is the "Satanic Temple"?
According to their own website:

"The Satanic Temple seeks to separate Religion from Superstition by acknowledging religious belief as a metaphorical framework with which we construct a narrative context for our goals and works. Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfless revolt against tyranny, free and rational inquiry, and the responsible pursuit of happiness.

In theological terms, the mythology translates thus:

God is supernatural and thus outside of the sphere of the physical. God’s perfection means that he cannot interact with the imperfect corporeal realm. Because God cannot intervene in the material world, He created Satan to preside over the universe as His proxy. Satan has the compassion and wisdom of an angel.  Although Satan is subordinate to God, he is mankind’s only conduit to the dominion beyond the physical. In addition, only Satan can hear our prayers and only Satan can respond.  While God is beyond human comprehension, Satan desires to be known and knowable. Only in this way can there be justice and can life have meaning.

The Satanist harbors reasonable agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. The cultural narratives through which we contextualize our lives must be malleable to conformity with our best scientific understandings of the material world… Those understandings, in turn, must never be so rigidly codified as to themselves be inflexible to advancements yet unknown. Thus, Satanism is an evolving religion, unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Belief must reconstruct itself to fact, never the other way round. This is the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, even (and especially) when to do so irretrievably dissipates blissful and comforting delusions of old.
That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."

Most Satanists do not claim to worship Satan, rather they claim to be agnostics and/or atheists who seek to satisfy their pleasures and cling to "science" while uniting around a "mythology" which unites them in a formalized setting. They further claim as their beliefs:

"There are seven fundamental tenets:
1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
3. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word."

 One could rightfully ask, "Why does a group that claims 'reason' and 'science' want to go around offending people with something they consider mythology?" They would be better off joining the Ethical Humanist Society if "reason and science" were their main concerns, and drop the whole "myth-schtick." Satan is the Father of Lies and it seems more than likely, there are some (even most) who do buy into the actual worship of the devil. This is the same group that wants to donate a Satanic statue to the Oklahoma State Capital, to get "equal time" with a monument of the Ten Commandments.  The statue of the Baphomet, or Sabbatic Goat, a figure that has been used to represent Satan for centuries, is to be made of bronze, poured over a clay mold. Images in the news show the hideous figure on a throne, with smiling children at each knee.

Look again at the seven fundamental tenets. don't they seem to be the same subject matter Antipope Francis talks about, and the themes of most Vatican II clergy "homilies"?

II. What did the Satanic Temple plan to do at the "black mass"?

  According to Joseph Laycock: "Had the black mass proceeded as planned, it would have been about two hours long, with the first hour devoted to an educational lecture and the second half to a performance. There would have been a short speech by Harvard ethicist Christopher Robichaud about how we define such ideas as hate-speech and tolerance" Then, "The second half would have been a performance of a black mass based on descriptions from the nineteenth-century French novel La-bas. Two actors dressed as a nun and a priest would have performed a ritual in liturgical Latin. A prop representing a communion wafer would have been stepped on or otherwise defiled. It was this last detail that became the focus of the controversy."

Deo gratias, the Novus Bogus Vatican II service is null and void, so a real Host could not be defiled. Interestingly, when the Satanic Temple was asked about this, they said the host would be unconsecrated, but when the University group suggested stepping on a piece of broccoli instead, they refused! (See
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/7878/black_mass_hysteria_at_harvard__the_real_story/)

III. What is the true Catholic teaching on such matters and how does it compare with Vatican II?

 Just as William F. Buckley, Jr. deplored the effects of bad teachers on good Faith and Morals in 1951 at Yale, what happened at Harvard (unthinkable even 25 years ago) is the logical outcome of the false teachers at Vatican II.

Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World) §73 states:

"No better way exists for attaining a truly human political life than by fostering an inner sense of justice, benevolence, and service for the common good, and by strengthening basic beliefs about the true nature of the political community, and about the proper exercise and limits of public authority."

Obviously, the text is not concerned with "political life" marked by Christian values, but "political life" marked by human values, that is, by values that are generally characterized by "an inner sense of justice, service for the common good." In fact, in this scheme, it is not a question of intellect and will adhering to principles of "justice" and "charity" and to "service" founded on revealed Truth, principles that are objectively set forth by God and taught by the Church throughout the centuries, and necessitate our adherence to them. Rather it is a matter of values merely heeding to an "inner sense." This is totally foreign to Catholicism, and even mortally contrary to it, but is typical of Modernist thinking. However, it goes along nicely with the tenets of the Satanic Temple, doesn't it?  Let's see what the True Church teaches,"That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. (See Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, #3, 1906).

Even in a society where Catholics are not the majority, to give free reign to the public worship of evil (under a guise of humanitarianism guided by Freemasonic principles, must be condemned as intrinsically evil. It is not merely "disrespectful."  Being bigoted is the ONLY sin the general public acknowledges these days. Even then, if the KKK wanted to re-enact a mock lynching, I doubt they would have gotten the support of the president of Harvard. The satanists claim the analogy is inapposite because what they do is not oppressive to any minority; they are the minority that has been repressed, and they are showing their disapproval by blasphemy. Once you accept the Masonic/Modernist premises, such nonsense starts to sound OK. The fact is, approval of those who deny God and his objective moral order must be condemned and stopped-- whether those who do so are a majority or minority. This is contrary to the Masonic principles of our country and of the Vatican II sect which joins them.


Nostra Aetate (Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions) §2 states:

"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy (vera et sancta) in these religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."

This means that, for the Vatican II sect, the truth "which enlightens all men" perhaps comes through rules and teachings that differ "in many particulars" from the Church's teaching! (How could an authentic ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church have been inspired to articulate such an idea? Answer: It couldn't!). We get this insanity from the heretical notion of "Frankenchurch"( i.e.that there is a "Church of Christ"  within, yet not wholly contained by the Catholic Church and is present according to how many "elements" are to be had). To have all elements is best, but having just some is good too. So if the Temple of Satan acknowledges the devil as portrayed by the Bible, they have some truth, so why protest? Think I'm making an overstatement?

§18 of Ad Gentes (on missionary activity), states:

"Working to plant the Church, and thoroughly enriched with the treasures of mysticism adorning the Church's religious tradition, religious communities should strive to give expression to these treasures and to hand them on in a manner harmonious with the nature and the genius of each nation. Let them reflect attentively on how Christian religious life may be able to assimilate the ascetic and contemplative traditions whose seeds were sometimes already planted by God in ancient cultures prior to the preaching of the gospel."

Here, "ancient cultures" whose gods were "devils," and whose sacrifices were offered "to devils and not to God" (I Cor. 10:20), are recognized in them a salvific presence of "semina Verbi" of the "seeds of revealed Truth." The devil is thus rehabilitated by Vatican II.

 Finally, isn't the Novus Bogus Vatican II service the blackest of all blasphemous "masses"? The people seek the Food of Angels and are given nothing but bread. It pretends to be of God, but it comes from Hell too.

  In summation, the Vatican II sect protested a "black mass."  It was held to be wrong due to "prejudice" more than being an intrinsic evil to society. They went to worship a piece of ordinary bread for an hour because they have destroyed the True Mass and Sacraments. Worst of all, the teachings of Modernism have led us to a place in history where to permit devil worship (properly so-called or otherwise), despite the protestations of a few, is really nothing more than being offensive to people's sensibilities. How could it be otherwise given the teachings of Vatican II?

 At the "canonizations" of Wotyla and Roncalli, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), lamented the elimination of the devil's advocate. They still can't see Mr. Begoglio and his robber council are the biggest advocates Lucifer ever had.