Monday, February 23, 2015

Education That's Rotten To The Core

 "Suffice it to say that there will always be a chasm dividing those who believe in God as the ultimate norm of morality for man created for a supernatural end, and those who look upon man as another temporary worker experimenting on this globe in order to get the best and the most out of this short existence."--Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, leader of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (founded 1964), in The Educational Rights Of The Church And Elementary Schools In Belgium his dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Canon Law, Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. (1953)

 There was a time when you could get a moral education from public schools and a really moral, Faith-based education from Catholic Schools whose hallways were filled with young nuns in full habits teaching the most important lesson of all: How to get to Heaven. Then came Vatican II. The nuns abandoned their vocations in droves, and most of the ones who remained (and the few who entered), dressed like laywomen and became little more than social workers who were concerned about promoting socialism. Modernist laymen and women replaced almost all of them, as they had "more important" things to do than help children grow to know, love, and serve God in this life and be eternally happy with him in the next life.

As if that were not bad enough, "Common Core" has been recently pushed on America by the governors of the United States, and the Obama administration. Forty-six (46) states have adopted these standards, ostensibly to raise and keep a rigorous and uniform curriculum in the country. However, the Common Core (also used in most Vatican II sect schools), is fraught with the ideals of Modernism and paganism. I was a NYC teacher before going to law school, so I'm no stranger to teaching--and I'm not overstating the danger.

 There are many disturbing aspects of Common Core, but I will focus on just two: "Death Education" and "Values Clarification." You will not find any mention of them in the Common Core Learning Standards. They will be embedded in courses and programs such as civics, character education, social justice, self-esteem, and anti-bullying.

1. Death Education. According to one "deathspert,"  Ethel King-McKenzie:

"Teachers and parents need to find ways to expose children to the reality of death, as it will
be better for them. I understand that children should not be robbed of their innocence but
telling them about death will empower them. A curriculum that fails to address a topic as
important as death and dying is in itself dead. Society changes and our schools and
curriculum must adapt to these changes." (See "Death and Dying In the Curriculum of the Public Schools: Is There a Place", Journal of Emerging Knowledge on Emerging Markets, Vol. 3 [2011], Art. 29). Emphasis mine

In public school, this means telling kids "your going to die" without any reference to God and the afterlife. In Modernist Vatican II sect schools it means "we're going to die but we're all going to Heaven so don't worry." According to one source," ...Tara Becker describes how she was traumatized by class discussions on death during her junior year in high school in Littleton, Colo.
Standing in her parents' neat and polished kitchen, Becker says that her creative-writing teacher was preoccupied not with prose, but death, and encouraged her to believe it was something natural that she should look forward to. Becker recalls her teacher saying that "death was just escaping this body. . . . When we die we go back to the oversoul."

Becker, a fundamentalist Christian, says she became more and more suicidal and told her parents she was going to drive off a cliff. She collapsed, she says, and spent several weeks in a hospital, diagnosed with severe depression. Ed Garvey wishes he knew for certain if it was death education, or some other problem, that caused his 15-year-old son, Scott, to shoot himself in March 1989. At Schaumburg (Ill.) High School, Scott "was a good student, on the honor roll, played sports, had no problem with drugs and alcohol and the autopsy showed that," Garvey said.Three days before he shot himself, Scott began taking a nine-day unit on death, as part of a required health course. He also wrote an essay on reincarnation in his English class in which he promised, "I'll be back.

After neighbors found Scott's body, his mother, Sandy, entered his bedroom and on the floor, between the bed and the desk, was a school-issued book called Coping With Death and Dying.
Reading it, the Garveys were stopped by some of its language, particularly a sentence on the right-to-die movement: "Committing suicide may represent a last attempt to make an independent personal decision."
"I don't know if I could ever say with 100 percent certainty that there's a direct link," said Ed Garvey. "There's no way of getting inside his mind and (knowing his) thought processes. . . . However, I think there is a definite correlation." (See

This sick preoccupation with death began after the 1969 publication of the book On Death and Dying by Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. Dr. Kübler-Ross lectured widely, spreading her credo that “dying can be one of the most beautiful, incredible experiences of life if it is shared with loved ones.” Joyful acceptance of death became the central theme of her work. This runs directly contrary to the teaching of the Church that death is punishment for sin, and we must work out our salvation, made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, "in fear and trembling."

Kübler-Ross herself became the charismatic leader of a New Age death cult. According to Omega, The Journal of Death and Dying (Vol. 16, No. 2, 1985-86):

"Kübler-Ross’ religion is a new form of an old tradition of religious thought and practice, namely the tradition of the mystery religions, which thrived in pre-Christian antiquity. The womb and the grave have been equated in mystery religions. ... This is precisely the significance of Kübler-Ross’ choice of death and dying as her primary consideration as a charismatic leader." This wicked woman's teachings have been promoted in both public and Vatican II schools. I know from personal experience.

 I was a junior in a Vatican II sect high school when I converted to Traditionalism. The Marianist brother who taught Modernism as "Catholicism" subjected us to four months of listening to tapes of Kubler-Ross discussing different people she observed dying in a hospice. Many in the class (myself included) experienced depression and nightmares. The brother told us that through "discussing and experiencing death in our lives, we will come to know God exists." (!) I guess the Five Ways of Aquinas just didn't cut it. This was spiritual and mental abuse.  Parents didn't complain because  he was a brother--and unfortunate result of the "clergy/religious can't be wrong" attitude from the 1950s. This same attitude was one of the reasons the Vatican II sect was able to take over so effectively. 

2. Values Clarification

 I don't know how many of you are aware of the insidious simulation called "Lifeboat." In this (and similar scenarios) there are more people on the boat than food to survive. You're given a list of people with "pros" (a scientist) and "cons" (the scientist is also a paraplegic). You must then decide (individually or as a class) who will live and who gets thrown into the ocean to drown. What's the purpose of doing something so hideous? It has nothing to do with critical thinking and everything to do with the evil idea that some people have a fundamental right to choose life or death for others.

 The values clarification movement was developed primarily by philosopher John Dewey, an atheist. Accordingly, behavior should be the result of free, uninfluenced, autonomous choice, based on personal analysis of a given situation coupled with the moment's emotions and desires. Rather than adherence to an external moral code, Dewey pushed something he called "valuation" in which a given situation is explored and various "solutions" discussed. This directly contradicts Church teaching on making choices based on a rightly formed conscience.

 Hence, choices are good or foolish, never right and wrong. Sin and repentance are never mentioned.

Human sexuality programs attempt to inculcate an appreciation for "waiting for marriage" by cultivating fear of bad consequences: pregnancy, disease, and heartbreak. They never state that premarital sex is sinful and they do not urge sinners to repent. Therefore, the dilemma posed to youth by their teachers is no longer a question of morality--- it is a health issue. And, yes, I'm talking about programs in Vatican II schools, not just public schools!

3. Warning to Parents

 A Traditionalist should never send their child to a Vatican II sect school. It's as non-Catholic as sending them to a Yeshiva school (and with lower moral standards). When sending them to public schools, be very aware of everything they are being taught. Ask to see all materials and attend school board meetings. Don't assume that you don't need to inquire about something like an anti-bullying program; it could be a way of inducing acceptance of the sodomite lifestyle. Not to harm homosexuals is one thing, to demand you accept their unnatural practices and so-called "marriages" is another.

 Send your child to a Traditionalist school, if you're lucky enough to have one nearby. Teach them the One True Faith at home, as well as in Traditionalist Sunday school. When they reach middle school age, let them know why so-called "death education" and "values clarification" are wrong. Remind them that the only standards that really matter are God's standards as expressed by the Ten Commandments and the teaching of the Magisterium.

In this way, if they are ever asked to decide who to throw off a lifeboat, they can (correctly) use a Bergoglian saying: "Hey, who am I to judge?"




Monday, February 16, 2015

It's Black And White: There Is No "Pope In Red"

In last week's post, I discussed the so-called "Siri Thesis," the claim by some that Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, not Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, was elected pope at the 1958 conclave to succeed Pope Pius XII.
What troubled me greatly was a website, "" which is long on appeals to private revelations and short on citations to approved pre-Vatican II theologians. We are to anticipate "Three Days of Darkness," a chastisement from God revealed to several holy souls (Anna-Maria Taigi, among others), after which Christ will appoint the pope to succeed Siri (who was allegedly "Pope Gregory XVII"). Please beware of anyone who equates or exalts private revelations, even ones approved by the Church (e.g. Fatima), over the Church's Teachings expounded by Her approved pre-Vatican II theologians. No one is bound to accept any private revelation, no matter how many times competent Church authorities approve it. We are bound to accept the teachings of the Magisterium.

  The site links to some even more disturbing sites, especially  "" and ""  There they call Abp. Levebvre "non-priest and non-bishop." If true, this would render invalid most Traditionalist priests or bishops who derive their priestly and/or episcopal orders through Abp. Lefebvre. Fortunately, they are wrong, and as Our Lord said, "By their fruits thou shalt know them." (St. Matt. 7:16). Anyone claiming to be of God, and yet would keep people away from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and sacraments, can not come from Christ. The so-called "hierarchy in exile"--which seems to consist of one priest, Fr. Peter Kohat Van Tran--- also (for reasons I could not find) consider the orders of Abp. Thuc "dubious." and its links bring to surface an old canard that Abp. Lefebvre was neither a priest nor a bishop because his ordaining and consecrating bishop, Archille Cardinal Lienart was a Freemason. The famous Traditionalist writer, Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, wrote a great article "Cracks in the Masonry," which deals with the issue. However, I believe an even stronger rebuttal is needed at this time.

 1. Was Lienart a Freemason?
 Despite unsubstantiated claims of a "deathbed confession," there is simply no proof Lienart was a Mason. He was a Modernist, to be certain, but claims of "Masonry" go back to one highly dubious source. According to Dr. Coomaraswamy:

"The most specific source is a book entitled Papal Infallibility (L'lnfaillibilité Pontificale) by the French writer Marquis de la Franquerie. This individual is said to be "a papal Secret Chamberlain who lives in Lucon, Vendée, France," and "a learned historian with special knowledge in the field of penetration of the Catholic hierarchy by Freemasonry in France." He is said to be a traditionalist, and a friend of Archbishop Lefebevre.

On page 80 of his book, during the course of a discussion of the modernist maneuverings in prepraration for Vatican II, the Marquis mentions, almost in passing, that Cardinal Liénart was a “luciferian” who attended "black Masses." Toward the end of a lengthy footnote on another topic that continues onto the following page, the Marquis adds:“This attitude of the Cardinal could not sur­prise those who knew his membership in the Freemasonic and Luciferian lodges. This was the reason why the author of this study [i.e., the Marquis de la Franquerie] always had refused to accompany Cardinal Liénart in the official ceremonies as Secret Chamberlain.
      “The Cardinal had been initiated in a lodge in Cambrai whose Venerable was Brother Debierre. He frequented a lodge in Cambrai, three at Lille, one in Valenciennes, and two in Paris, of which one was in a special way com­posed of parliamentarians. In the year 1919, he is designated as ‘Visitor’ (18th Degree), then, in 1924, as 30th degree. The future Car­dinal met in the lodges Brother Debierre and Roger Solengro. Debierre was one of the in­formers of Cardinal Gasparri who had been initiated in America, and of Cardinal Hartmann. Archbishop of Cologne, a Rosicrucian.
      “The Cardinal belonged to the International League against Anti-Semitism, where he met up again with Marc Sangnier and Father Violet.“It was given to us to meet in Lourdes a former Freemason who, on July 19, 1932, had been miraculously cured of a wound suppurating on his left foot for fourteen years — a cure recognized by the Verification Bureau on July 18, 1933. This miraculously-healed gentleman, Mr. B..., told us that, at the time when he frequented a Luciferian lodge, he met there the cardinal whom he recognized and was dumbfounded.”
      Another source cited is Archbishop Lefebvre himself. In a talk given in Montreal, Canada on May 27, 1976, he stated:“Two months ago in Rome, the traditionalist periodical Chiesa Viva, published — I have seen it in Rome with my own eyes — on the back side of the cover, the photograph of Cardinal Liénart with all his Masonic paraphernalia, the day of the date of his in­scription in Masonry..., then the date at which he rose to the 20th, then to the 30th degree of Masonry, attached to this lodge, to that lodge, at this place, at that place. Mean­while, about two or three months after this publication was made, I heard nothing about any reaction, or any contradiction. Now, un­fortunately, I must say to you that this Cardinal Liénart is my bishop, it is he who or­dained me a priest, it is he who consecrated me a bishop. I cannot help it... Fortunately, the orders are valid... But, in spite of it, it was very painful for me to be informed of it.”
      The issue of Chiesa Viva was No. 51, March, 1976. In it there is an article entitled "Il Cardinale Achille Liénart era Massone."
However, the Archbishop's memory was faulty, for the photograph involved was a picture of Cardinal Liénart in ordinary ecclesiastical attire, and below this a drawing which shows a monumental entrance door to a building around which Freemasonic sym­bols are grouped. This second picture carried the designation: "Entrance door to a Freemasonic temple."
The article, whose author is not named, says that the source of his information is pages 80 and 81 of Papal Infalibility, the book quoted above. Another Italian journal, Si Si, No, No, also informs us that Cardinal Liénart was a Freemason. Its source, however, also turns out to be the Marquis de la Franquerie’s Papal Infalibility. Now, gentle reader, this is the sum total of the "evidence" brought forth for Cardinal Liénart be­ing a Freemason! And it all goes back to the asser­tions of the Marquis de la Franquerie......The Marquis provides a similar paucity of evidence — a "Mr. B..." who knew of this matter in 1932, but, despite his gratitude to the Blessed Virgin for a miraculous cure, and despite the fact that he knew Achille Liénart was teaching in the Seminary of Lille, ordaining priests and con­secrating bishops, decided not to share his precious secret. Nothing like an "irrefutable anonymous source”!......Now, I find it extremely strange that the Marquis, who received this high papal honor of being named a Secret Chamberlain, did nothing to expose this terrible situation when he had access to Church authorities prior to Vatican II. Why did he also wait until the mid-seventies to provide the world with this informa­tion? It seems, then, that we cannot really take any of the evidence seriously. It is sensationalist tittle-tattle that proves nothing.
We are therefore morally obliged to find the "defendant," Cardinal Liénart, not guilty of the charge."

2. What if Lienart HAD been a Mason? Does this fact render the ability to receive and confect sacraments invalid or dubious?

No. The websites contend that (a) Masons are heretics and their elevation as bishops are rendered null and void by Ex Cum Apostalatus of Pope Paul IV, and (b) Masonic membership equals invalid sacraments because they withhold their intention to receive and confect sacraments. The website states:
 Ex Cum Apostalatus says, "...if at ANY TIME it will be found (discovered) that some bishop, BEFORE his promotion or assumption had deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy (i.e. Occult Freemasonry), ...that promotion or assumption ("consecration") concerning him... is null, void and worthless (FOREVER) ... and ... [no] length of whatever time in the future, can be said to have recovered power or to be able to recover power, nor can (the assumption or promotion) ["consecration"] be considered as legitimate in any part of it, ... for those who are promoted (FALSELY/INVALIDLY) as bishops... ."

This means that they would have no JURISDICTIONAL authority, not an absence of  sacramental power as valid bishops. Since the papacy is only an office of jurisdiction, and not a sacrament, a heretic can never be a valid pope. As to point (b), here's what canonists and the pre-Vatican II theologians have taught:

Principle: Sacraments conferred by a Catholic minister, including Holy Orders, must be presumed valid until invalidity is proved.

"When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed." (W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.)

"Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does." (Bull Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896.)The theologian Leeming says this passage recapitulates the teachings of previous theologians who "all agreed that the outward decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists.… The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash." (B. Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology [Westminster MD: Newman 1956], 476, 482.)

4. Does heresy, or even apostasy, nullify an ordaining/consecrating bishop's intention?


"Error in faith, or even total disbelief, does not harm this intention; for concepts of the intellect have nothing in common with an act of the will." (S. Many, Praelectiones de Sacra Ordinatione [Paris: Letouzey 1905], 586.)

5.  What would be necessary to have a "defect of intention"?

"An ordination is invalid if the minister… as he confers it on someone, makes an act of the will not to ordain that person, because by that very fact he does not have at least the intention of doing what the Church does —indeed, he has a contrary intention." (P. Gasparri, Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione [Paris: Delhomme 1893], 1:970.)

6.  Is a bishop, even one who belongs to Masonry, presumed to have such a "contrary positive intention"?


"In performing an ordination the minister is never presumed to have such an intention of not ordaining, as long as the contrary would not be proved. For no one is presumed evil unless he is proven as such, and an act — especially one as solemn as an ordination — must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated." (Gasparri, 1:970.)

However, would have us set up a presumption opposite of what the Church teaches. "Masonic" prelates are, according to the, to be presumed guilty until proven innocent! The runs contrary to the principles of equity taught by both ecclesiastical law and U.S. civil law.

7.  Do the Siri theorists at (and the related links) cite to any pre-Vatican II theologians, or canonists to prove their contention that a Masonic bishop confers invalid or dubious sacraments?


They cite no pre-Vatican II canonist, moral theologian or dogmatic theologian who proposes or defends their contention about Masonic membership and invalid/dubious sacraments.

Instead, all they offer are the standard quotes about Masonry — it conspires to destroy the Church, is condemned by popes, promotes Naturalism, is a cause for excommunication, etc. This merely proves what no one disputes: Masonry is evil.

However, wicked men and even unbelievers can confer valid sacraments, so it gets you no closer to proving the principle they have invented: "Masonic membership results in producing invalid/doubtful sacraments."

If such a general principle were true, popes, canonists and theologians would have told us so, and these websites would be able provide quotes and citations.

8. What are the logical--and ridiculous--conclusions of the invented principles of these websites?

During the French Revolution, you have a notorious Mason, Bishop Talleyrand, consecrating as a Bishop for the so-called "Constitutional Church" Bishop Jean-Baptiste Suarine. Bp. Saurine belonged to the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge of Paris. Of all the Masonic lodges in the world, the Grand Orient of Paris in which Saurine was a governing member has always been considered the most powerful and the most anti-Catholic. Despite this, Pope Pius VII appointed Mgr. Saurine Bishop of Strasbourg in 1802, a post that this Masonic bishop retained until his death in 1813.

So in France we find Masonic bishops consecrating other Masons bishops, whom the pope then appoints to head Catholic dioceses, where they confirm children, bless holy oils used to anoint the dying, ordain priests and consecrate other bishops. Yet, the Church NEVER considered such consecrations invalid (in either conferral or reception) on the basis of Masonic membership--and in this case, unlike Lienart, it is a proven fact! Consider also that much of the lower clergy were Masons.

"One fact is inescapable: the lodges contained a large number of ecclesiastics… At Caudebec fifteen out of eighty members of the lodge were priests; at Sens, twenty-five out of fifty. Canons and parish priests sat in the Venerable Assembly, while the Cistercians of Clairvaux had a Lodge within the very walls of their monastery! Saurine, a future bishop of Strasbourg under Napoleon, was a governing member of the Grand Orient. We cannot be far from the truth in suggesting that towards the year 1789 a quarter of French freemasons were churchmen… [In 1789 there were] seven atheists and three deists out of one hundred and thirty-five French bishops." (H. Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Eighteenth Century [London: Dent 1960] 63, 73. See also J. McManners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France [Oxford: University Press 1998] 1:354, 356, 420, 509.)
What about all the baptisms given by Masonic priests? They would be considered invalid, which would in turn render invalid all the ordinations of any boys who grew up to be priests (you need to be baptized to be ordained). Any of these invalid priests who might have been consecrated bishops would also be invalid bishops. There's no end to the lunacy.

Would God permit a "hierarchy in exile" to teach such manifest nonsense? There is no incontrovertible proof that Siri was pope, and no proof he appointed a successor or has a "hierarchy." Forget the "pope in red." Worry about the "phony in white" at the Modernist Vatican.




Monday, February 9, 2015

One Question Siri Can't Answer

 In this day and age of modern technology, Siri is an application for Apple's iOS which works as a personal assistant and knowledge navigator. Ask a question, and Siri will answer in English with a female voice. Ask it "Who was elected pope in 1958?" and it will respond by mentioning an enigma in Traditionalist circles--the "Siri Theory." This theory proclaims as fact that in the 1958 conclave to succeed Pope Pius XII, it was actually Giuseppe Cardinal Siri who was elected as Pope Gregory XVII, but was forced under grave duress to step aside for Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII).  What significance does this theory hold for Traditionalists? What are the practical consequences? It is these questions I will now explore.

1. What evidence is there that Siri was elected pope and not Roncalli?

On October 26, 1958, white smoke appeared from the conclave to succeed Pope Pius XII signaling the election of a new Vicar of Christ. Black smoke came out about two hours later, and the white smoke was claimed to be a mistake. On October 28, 1958, Antipope John XXIII was declared the new pontiff. It is claimed that Cardinal Siri, of Genoa, had been elected and taken the name of Pope Gregory XVII. Siri, a staunch anti-Communist and anti-Modernist was (according to proponents of the theory) blackmailed into stepping aside. Some say it was threats against his life and his family, others say it was threats from Communist Russia that they would launch nuclear missiles at Rome. There is also a credible report from one FBI source that suggests Siri was elected. (See The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia by Paul L. Williams, 2003, Prometheus Books).

 Canon 185 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states, "Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony."  Had such an occurrence taken place, Siri would have indeed remained pope, and Roncalli an antipope. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, was a peritus (expert) at Vatican II and fought against the Modernists. He told me, based on his personal knowledge of many Cardinals who were involved in the 1958 conclave, that the real fight was between Cardinals Ottaviani and Siri. Ottaviani was so confident of his election, he had already picked out his papal name---Pius XIII. When he and Siri locked for votes and neither could muster 2/3 plus one for election, a small band of Cardinals came up with a plan for a "transitional" pope---and Roncalli was elected. The white smoke could have been an error, and there is evidence for this as well. The explanation by Fr. DePauw and human error could account for the white smoke.

 2.  If Siri had been elected Pope, would he have remained such until his death in 1989?

 Siri certainly didn't act like a pope. He signed all of the documents at Vatican II, especially Lumen Gentium, the damnable document with the heretical ecclesiology of "Frankenchurch" i.e., that there is an entity known as the "Church of Christ" that is distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, but resides there in its "fullness." This Church of Christ resides elsewhere according to how many "elements" the sect possesses. To have all the elements like the RC Church is best, but to have some is good as well and leads to salvation. This trashes the necessity of Church membership for salvation, and allows for Francis to maintain "Proselytism is nonsense."

Siri also said the Novus Bogus invalid Vatican II bread and wine service, never supported any Traditionalist group (sedevacantist or SSPX), and publicly recognized Rocalli (John 23), Montini (Paul 6), Luciani (JP I) and Wotyla (JP II) as "popes."  He used the invalid Vatican II "sacraments," and gave the "homily" at the "mass" of Christian Burial for John Paul I (Luciani). Of course, we can always concoct boogeymen to say he was "coerced" into all of this for over 30 years. You know; Masonic death threats, Communist threats of nuclear war, etc. But how credible does all this sound? Couldn't he have at least done as much as Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil and refuse to use the new "mass" and "sacraments" in his diocese? Despite claims by some that he did this, it is unsubstantiated. The fact that he used the new "mass" and "sacraments" is incontrovertible. Seeing the Vatican II sect in the 1980s, he couldn't call a press conference before his death? (On that score, supporters will claim that he was held to silence in the conclave by a seal not unlike confession).

Had he been elected, it seems that he would have lost his office by becoming a heretic, unless you posit that he was under constant grave duress for over 30 years!

3. Where is the pope now? Did Siri leave a successor?

 If Siri was pope, and if he didn't lose office through heresy (both very big IFs), did he appoint a successor? There is no indication that such was ever even attempted by Siri. There is a website, LOADED with error in many things, which claims that Siri's successor will be revealed after "Three Days of Darkness." As usual in all things claiming to be Catholic but are bizarre, private revelations are exalted above the teachings of the pre-Vatican II theologians. It's always about visions, apparitions, etc. When theology is even attempted, its restricted to St. Thomas Aquinas, as if theology stopped with him. I will have more to say regarding "" next week. I would be remiss if I didn't say there exists a small group which holds that Siri, before his death, had appointed a "Pope Gregory XVIII" who (for some reason or other) is "in hiding." They are called "sedeimpedists" since the pope is impeded from claiming the Chair of Peter, distinguishing them from "conclavists" who "elected" an antipope (e.g. "Pope" Michael).

4. What does the "Siri Theory" have to do with Traditionalists in the practical order?

 Nothing. If he were the pope (at least during the conclave and before the signing of the Vatican II documents) this would make John XXII an Antipope--as well as Montini (Paul VI). However, we already know that these two papal claimants could not be popes on wholly separate and independent grounds. Ditto for JP I and JP II, had he somehow retained his office until his death in 1989. We are still in a state of sedevacante, and the Vatican II sect must be opposed. A "secret successor'? I'll deal with that one next week--there isn't any.

Who was elected in 1958? Only Siri (Giuseppe) can answer that one for certain, and having passed into eternity May 2, 1989, he won't be answering.

Monday, February 2, 2015

Love The Sin, Hate The Sinner

 In the Vatican II sect, everything is backwards. The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is God-centered, gets replaced by the Novus Bogus "mass" which is man-centered. Likewise, the primary purpose of the sacraments (which, save Baptism and Holy Matrimony they rendered invalid) are made subordinate to the secondary purpose. Hence, to give but one example, Extreme Unction is now called "Anointing of the Sick." The primary purpose of remitting sin and strengthening the soul against what could be its final battle with Satan before it appears before the Judgment Seat of God, is replaced with restoration of bodily health (secondary effect, if God knows it to be for the good of the soul).

 Now, the old spiritual truth that we should "love the sinner, but hate the sin," gets inverted by Antipope Francis. According to an article in the National Catholic (sic) Reporter, the Modernist Vatican will neither confirm nor deny that Francis met with a transgendered Spaniard ( in this case a woman who was surgically mutilated into a "man"). There are numerous news reports that Frankie hugged the 48 year old Diego Media Lejarraga at a private meeting on January 24th in Vatican City.

 Sodomite/pervert "rights" supporters are jumping for joy. They are using this occasion to show how "inclusive" and "welcoming" Francis is of everyone. Lejarraga said a local priest called him the "devil's daughter," but despite this he wrote to Frankie in the hopes of being accepted and receiving a "papal blessing." According to the Spanish newspaper Hoy, Frankie told the unrepentant pervert, "You are a son of God and the Church loves you and accepts you as you are." (Emphasis mine)

 Yes, God loves sinners but hates sin. By telling this disturbed person he need not repent, Frankie is condoning his sin, his perversion, and his march towards Hell. The pervert even attended with his fiancée (wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if it was a "woman" that used to be a man!). Francis really hates this man. The priest who allegedly called Lejarraga the "devil's daughter" actually had more charity. I wouldn't advise saying that, but would definitely let the person know God loves him but not what he has done. He must seek psychological help from a Christian therapist, and spiritual guidance to both repent and stay chaste. This is true charity which the world hates and will not tolerate.

 New Ways Ministry, lead by Sr. Jeannine Gramick, is dedicated to normalizing perversion of all stripes. She wrote to Frankie that she will be leading an "LGBT pilgrimage" to Rome next month. She wants unrepentant sodomites and other unrepentant sinners to receive Vatican II "communion." (Deo gratias, it's invalid!). She shot back Frankie's own words that the Body and Blood of Christ is spiritual nourishment that we need to grow in our love-relationship with God, not "a prize to be awarded those who are worthy." Yes, no one is worthy to receive Christ, but you must first be a friend of God by being in the state of grace.

 Morality is so turned upside down, few can find their way in this every increasingly wicked world. I saw a post by a young woman decrying "revenge porn." That's when a former boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse posts nude pictures of their ex on the Internet, shaming them. This young woman (unmarried) blamed what happened to her as misogyny. She still gets emails calling her a whore over a year later. While the behavior of those men is deplorable, why would she take such photos in the first place? Fornication and porn doth not a virtuous woman make. So what does she do? Unbelievably, she puts up naked photos of herself on her own website!! She wanted to let the world know that the only thing wrong was "lack of consent" and invasion of her "right to privacy."  Porn is OK with her as long as you want to exploit your body and be an occasion of mortal sin to others. No repentance or acknowledgement that what was done is wrong.

 This year the US Supreme Court is poised to declare sodomite "marriage" a constitutional "right" in the name of "equality" and "privacy." We kill unborn children under the same banner of "right to privacy" and "reproductive freedom" which will give women "equality." As Pope Leo XIII wrote in Temetsi, "The world has heard enough of the so -called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God." But the world will hear none of it. Instead, we think "tolerance" and "acceptance" of those in unrepentant sin is a "virtue." The world will even declare such evils as "rights."People who judge things as sin and demand penance are denounced as "mean-spirited," "exclusive," and even "evil."

 We are now reaping the fruit of such misguided modern morals. New evidence (3,500+ consecutive news reports from China to the US to Russia over the past three years) shows that the portion of a society's child molestation attributable to homosexual abuse is strongly and directly related to its degree of acceptance of homosexuality (See Family Research Institute Jan/2015 bulletin by Dr. Paul Cameron, PhD.). Actions speak louder than words, and Antipope Francis is showing that, despite what still passes for official Vatican policy in some aspects, he wants acceptance of any unrepentant sinner and, by extension, to the sin itself. Unfortunately, those he deludes will find Hell quite intolerable and unacceptable.
I'm reminded of 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error."

Monday, January 26, 2015

Failing The Rabbit Test

Years ago, when a woman tested positive for pregnancy, there was rejoicing by the parents. True, a rabbit died as part of the testing, but the need to know if there was a pregnancy justified its medical use. Antipope Francis, is now saying, "God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that – excuse the word – that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No."

 Humans have the sacred and awesome role in assisting in God's creation. When a man and woman, joined in Holy Matrimony, use natural means to procreate, they form the body of the new human person, and God infuses the immortal soul. Ratzinger opened the door to contraception being formally legitimized in the Vatican II sect when he said female prostitutes could licitly use contraception to prevent the spread of AIDS. This is the complete overthrow of Catholic moral theology. 

 The Ordinary Universal Magisterium has always taught that acts contrary to nature are intrinsically evil and cannot be justified. To say otherwise is to accept the principle that the end justifies the means. An article published in the Vatican II rag, The Wanderer (which always seeks to explain away the Modernist heresy of the Vatican II antipopes), said that contraception is only wrong within marriage because outside of marriage all sexual acts are forbidden anyway, hence extramarital contraception must be judged as moral or immoral on extrinsic grounds (!) 

 If there is nothing wrong with perverting the sex act outside of marriage then bestiality, as well as sodomy, could be justified on some extrinsic grounds. Now, Frankie is getting ready to take it to the next step-- feel free to limit children at will and with out sufficient cause. Don't trust in God. People see our sect as promoting "breeding like rabbits." Frankie even castigated a woman who had seven children by C-section and was pregnant with another child as "irresponsible." 

 All this could lead to a de facto overturning of the true teaching against contraception. The fact (always brought up in the media) that "89% of married Catholics (sic) approve of contraception" no more renders it licit or moral than if 89% of Catholics approved of adultery. When the next October synod on the family takes place in October, watch for what is probably coming next: limiting children at will for selfish reasons is "legitimate." 

 This is an injury to God. Marriage was instituted to propagate the human race. It is an injury to society. It depopulates an already shrinking Christian society which will be overrun by the Mohammedans having large families. It is an injury to the family. It renders the husband and wife selfish and they will either spoil or neglect the one or two children to which they limited themselves  for selfish motives; not out of absolute necessity. It is an injury to the individual as they subordinate the highest good of marriage to their selfish desire to be free from children they deem "unnecessary" because it would detract from a lavish lifestyle. 

 Whether or not Christianity survives or is enslaved by the darkness of Islamism depends on the proper view of the ends of marriage and self-sacrifice. This is a matter of the highest importance--not an exercise in splitting hares. 

Monday, January 19, 2015

Taking A Jab At Truth

 Antipope Francis made headlines this week when, in the wake of the murders at the rag Charlie Hebdo, he claimed that violence in the name of God is never justified (really? The Crusades and just wars were contrary to the Will of God?). He then went on to claim that, "You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others … There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity … in freedom of expression there are limits." Francis then made the quip that if one of his aides (standing beside him) were to insult his mother, the aide should expect to get punched. 

 The media has had a field day with these remarks and, once more, spin-doctors at the Modernist Vatican were attempting damage control (i. e. He didn't mean that violence is justified if you insult someone, etc.) Nevertheless, there were some underlying principles which were by and large ignored and to which I wish to draw your attention. 

 1. "Every religion has its dignity."

  Error has no dignity, error has no rights, except the right to disappear. 

The following propositions were CONDEMNED as ERROR in the Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX:

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

It's obvious the True Church did NOT consider false sects that send souls to their eternal ruin as "dignified." There is only dignity in truth not lies. Herein we find the "Frankenchurch" ecclesiology of Vatican II, which teaches that there are "elements of truth" in false religions, and from this "partial truth" they allegedly derive "dignity."

2. "You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

 As a practical matter in a pluralistic state, such as the United States, this is prudent advice. However, what constitutes "making fun"? Disagreeing with and working against false teachings is not the same as schoolyard name calling and taunts. Furthermore, look at the violent nature of Islam. They commit murder when their false prophet is attacked, but when was the last time such a thing occurred when Christ was insulted? You don't see Christians (of the false sects and the True Church) respond in such a way.

 A true pope would have condemned Islam, not made excuses for infidels.  Some commentators have defended Islam on the basis that the religion itself isn't violent, its what some people make of it. I suppose that some bigots could make the KKK an eleemosynary institution, but they would cease to be following the official teachings of the organization, and could no longer be considered Klansmen in the true sense of the word. The Koran teaches jihad and violence to spread the false teachings of Mohammed, anyone who doesn't do so is going against Islam. Analogously, a Traditionalist Catholic who has an abortion is not following official teaching and is "Catholic" in name only, incurring ipso facto excommunication.

3. "Insult my mother...a punch awaits..."

 OK, Frankie seems more protective of his mother than the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the man who made a joke about the Crucifixion!      
( Whom is he trying to kid? Insult my mother and expect a punch, but I'll mock Christ and you can laugh! Frankie has yet to denounce the anti-Catholic, and anti-theistic movies and pop culture singers who routinely mock Our Lord and Our Lady. He exalts his earthly mother over his Heavenly Mother and Her Divine Son.

 These were the real messages the media and bloggers missed. He might not "float like a butterfly and sting like a bee," but Antipope Francis will take a jab at truth every opportunity, hoping to score a knockout for the Father of Lies. 

Monday, January 12, 2015

The Evolution Of Heresy

 On January 1, 2015, the former three-term governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, died at the age of 82. His tenure as governor (1/1/83-12/31/94) was marked by controversy. The nominally "Catholic" governor of the Vatican II sect went out of his way to claim that you could be a "good Catholic" and support the murder of innocent children by abortion. Ironically, he would veto capital punishment citing his "conscience." His explanation was summed up as "capital punishment is the government taking a life, abortion is the government giving you a choice." I guess it never occurred to the left-wing media that their "erudite" darling couldn't come to grips with the fact that if an unborn baby is a person (which he conceded), then that is also taking human life---an innocent life to boot.

 As a life long New Yorker, I remember everyone being "proud" of the fact he was considered presidential or Supreme Court material, as a "great Catholic" (sic) and an Italian-American. One member of the Vatican II sect clergy, "Bishop" Austin Vaughn, Auxiliary Bp. for the Archdiocese of New York (who was in jail for blocking the entrance to an abortuary), denounced Cuomo and said he was going "straight to Hell" unless he repented. The remarks made front page of all the newspapers back in 1990, but not one other member of the Vatican II sect supported Vaughn, including his superior "Cardinal" John O'Connor. No one visited Vaughn in jail, and not a word from "St" John Paul II. Cuomo's son Andrew, the current governor, called his wayward father his "mentor and hero." He wants to enshrine Roe v. Wade into a statute, and in 2011, he strong-armed sodomite "marriage" into law. He lives in sin with his concubine (divorced without even a Vatican II phony "annulment"), and is freely given Vatican II "communion."

 I bring all this up, because as I read the liberal press lionizing this evil man, the New York Times motioned that he was a "disciple of the teachings of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ." Most people have probably never heard of Teilhard (1881-1955) or the destruction which he brought to the Church and the world at large.

Fast Facts On Teilhard:

  • He was born in south central France on May 1, 1881.
  •   He was educated at the Jesuit College at Mongre and joined the Society of Jesus in 1899.
  •  He continued philosophy and seminary education from 1901-05. This was followed by a three-year sojourn to Cairo, Egypt, where he taught physics and chemistry at a Jesuit school and developed his interest in paleontology. He went to England in 1908, studied theology and was ordained in 1911.

  •   He returned to Paris and studied paleontology and took a doctorate in 1922.

  •   For a short period he taught at the Catholic Institute in Paris but his unorthodox views, especially his rejection of Original Sin, led to his expulsion. He was exiled to China in 1923.

  • While in China, he never even attempted to make a convert, and some of his writings suggest he was a racist, who believed the Chinese were "sub-human."

  • He almost never offered The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

  • He was involved in the "Piltdown Man" hoax. They claimed to have found a "missing link" proving evolution, but it was proven to be a forgery--the jawbone of an ape attached to the skull of a human. Teilhard was involved in this lie.

  •  In 1926, his Superior forbade him to teach.

  •   In 1933, the Holy See in Rome ordered him to give up his subsequent post in Paris.

  •  In 1939, the Holy See banned some of his writings

  •   In 1947, Rome also forbade him to write or teach on philosophical subjects.
  •   In 1955, his Superiors forbade de Chardin to attend the International Congress on Paleontology. That same year, de Chardin died in New York on Easter Sunday.

  •   On June 30, 1962, a Monitum was given at Rome by the Holy Office: “It is sufficiently clear that the above mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine. For this reason, the most eminent and most reverend Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as Superiors of Religious Institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Teilhard de Chardin and his followers.”

  •  On July 20, 1981, the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the (Vatican II) Faith, printed a Statement in L’Osservatore Romano reiterating the warning of the 1962 banning of the writings of Teilhard.

According to Teilhard, the true religion, which is Christianity, emerges by means of evolution and reveals itself not as the final stage, but as the only religion capable of continuing development.  Far from being a stage through which humanity passes in adolescence, the adoration of a Savior God is essential to the maturation of human nature. Primitive needs are not outgrown but refined in the Catholic Church until, by its guidance, they are satisfied in the ultimate monotheism, in worship of the Omega-God of evolution. Teilhard’s writings are full of heresies condemned by the Church. Besides denying the Church’s infallible Doctrine of Original Sin, he did not believe in the supernatural, such as angels, the devil or Hell. De Chardin was also a pantheist, who claimed that everything is God.  In addition, Teilhard was a monist, a collectivist, a secularist, founder of a new religion and a religious evolutionist. (See The Truth About Teilhard, by Msgr. Leo S. Schumacher and Christ Denied by Fr. Paul Wickens--whom I was honored to know personally).As a religious evolutionist, Teilhard erroneously claimed that everything is “becoming” and evolving and that God is evolving. So too, does Faith and Moral "evolve" so there is no fixed and immutable dogmas or morals.

This lead to some interesting ideas of Teilhard that his proponents would like us to ignore:

"Rome does not want me to return to my professorship. They do not seem to have taken a dislike to me, far from it; but they want to save Religion…..I would take enormous delight in breaking all ties" (the reference here is to breaking all ties to traditional Catholic belief, and the Church as a whole – from letter written Feb. 14 1927)

"I do not think God should be worshipped" – from a conference given in 1947

"What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself, and to diffuse around me, a new religion (let’s call it an improved Christianity if you like) whose personal God is no longer the great neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the Soul of the world……"(Letter to Leontine Zanta, Jan 26 1936)

"Christ saves. But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by evolution?" (Le Christique, 1955)

"I have got so many friends in good strategic positions, that I feel quite safe about the future" (Letter, Sept. 24, 1947, wherein de Chardin remarks on his numerous disciples in positions of great influence in the Church, which would certainly appear to have been borne out by the accolades given de Chardin during the Second Vatican Council)

"No humane hopes for an organized society must cause us to forget that the human stratum may not be homogeneous. If it were not, it would be necessary to find for the Chinese, as for the Negroes, their special function, which may not (by biological impossibility) be that of the whites." (April 6, 1927 letter--pure racism)

 As you can see, if everything is in flux, you can claim to be "Catholic" while holding new and heretical/immoral ideas on everything from Creation, to the Sacraments, The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, abortion, and homosexuality. Teilhard's ideas came alive at Vatican II. Who are some of his most ardent supporters?

According to The National Catholic (sic) Reporter:
"Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, for example, who as a young theologian named Joseph Ratzinger criticized Teilhard's views, a few years ago praised Teilhard's "great vision"of the cosmos as a "living host." That raised a few eyebrows and prompted Benedict's spokesman to clarify that "by now, no one would dream of saying that (Teilhard) is a heterodox author who shouldn't be studied."
Benedict's successor, Pope Francis, has also invoked Teilhard-sounding concepts about the ongoing development of human consciousness, and Vatican observers say it would not be surprising if Teilhard made an appearance in an encyclical on the environment that Francis is currently writing."

 Ratzinger, Francis, and Mario Cuomo. These are the fruits of Teilhard. The late Fr. Malachi Martin (of whom I am no fan), did remark in his book Hostage to the Devil, that one of the five reported cases of diabolical possession (that of a priest) was caused by his reading of Teilhard's writings (technically forbidden in writing by the Vatican, but now openly embraced by the current and immediate past antipopes). Could it be that they have invited Satan not only into the Church (to set up a false sect), but even invited him to possess their very soul? Following  De Chardin in his radical evolutionism, they've become a monkey's uncle, and ape Satan in his hatred of the truth.