Monday, November 23, 2015

"Partial Communion" = Intercommunion

 Recently, Francis, the apostate Argentinian who falsely claims the title "pope," appeared at a prayer service in a Lutheran sect church and is opening the door to "intercommunion." At a question and answer session after the false worship service, a Lutheran woman asked Frankie, "My name is Anke de Bernardinis and, like many people in our community, I'm married to an Italian, who is a Roman Catholic Christian. We’ve lived happily together for many years, sharing joys and sorrows. And so we greatly regret being divided in faith and not being able to participate in the Lord's Supper together. What can we do to achieve, finally, communion on this point?" To a Catholic, the answer would be simple: "Leave your false religion and become a member of Christ's One True Church, then you can receive a valid Eucharist together at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."

 However, we all know Frankie is not Catholic, but the leader of the Vatican II sect which has a strange faith, and morals more decadent than the Lutherans. Here's what he had to say:

"The question on sharing the Lord’s Supper (avoid that four letter word the Modernists hate--MASS--Introibo) isn’t easy for me to respond to, above all in front of a theologian like Cardinal Kasper! I’m scared!" (Calling Walter Kasper a Catholic "theologian" is akin to calling Stalin a "humanitarian"--Introibo) " ....It’s a problem each must answer, but a pastor-friend once told me: 'We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present. You all believe that the Lord is present. And so what's the difference?'— 'Eh, there are explanations, interpretations.' Life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism. 'One faith, one baptism, one Lord.' This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences from there. I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more."

 "Talk to the Lord and then go forward." In other words, "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."  You believe Christ is present, we believe Christ is present, so who cares if such beliefs are grounded in Truth? Who cares about dogma? If you feel that you want to eat one of our invalid crackers we still jokingly refer to as "communion," please go right ahead. Ironically, neither sect has a valid Eucharist, so it really doesn't matter!

 The real crux of the matter lies in this telling phrase, "Always refer back to your baptism. 'One faith, one baptism, one Lord.' This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences from there." As I pointed out in a previous post (A "Laver Of Regeneration" No More--11/2/15) only some baptisms in the Vatican II sect are even valid. Lutheran baptisms are also dubious and need to be conditionally repeated. However, let's suppose they were valid. All validly baptized heretics and schismatics are considered members of the True Church until they begin to be taught the false doctrines of their sect at the age of reason (seven years of age).  After that, they have separated from the unity of Christ's Church and must return or be eternally lost. (See theologian Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology , The Neumann Press, 1961, 2:245).

 This makes perfect sense as there exists only one Church--the One established by Christ. All sects, Lutherans and Vatican II adherents included, belong to a man-made religion. If you are validly baptized, then by necessity you are baptized into the only Church; the traditional Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, one validly baptized is no longer a member of the Mystical Body of Christ when he is separated in matters of Faith (heresy), governance (schism), or excommunicated. As Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis,para. # 22:"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit."

 Frankie clearly contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius XII. The reason is simple: Vatican II ecclesiology (i.e. the teaching on the nature of the Church) has changed into something totally different and completely heretical. Pope Pius XII was teaching the perennial dogma of the Traditional Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Christ is a perfect society, insofar as She contains all that is necessary for the attainment of Her Divine Mission. Only the Catholic Church is of Divine origin, and only those who die in the Church with Sanctifying Grace in their souls can attain salvation. Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition in his Syllabus of Errors (1864):

19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights

Also condemned:
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church

Vatican II introduced a new ecclesiology, one wherein you can be "partially Catholic." In the damnable document Lumen Gentium, we read in paragraph #8:

"This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic (sic) unity." (Emphasis mine).

In other words, the Church of Christ is an entity distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. It subsists there in its fullness because it contains all the "elements of sanctification and truth" of the Church of Christ.  To be Catholic is best, but to be non-Catholic and have just some elements of truth and sanctification is good too, because Vatican II teaches in Unitatis Redintegratio # 3:

"For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

This directly contradicts the Syllabus of Errors above. Protestant sects are another form of the Church of Christ which possesses elements of truth and sanctification leading to salvation. The elements of truth and sanctification are only efficacious within the True Church. All others use them to no benefit. Taken to its logical conclusion, Satanism could be a "means of salvation." It has some "elements of truth" (e.g. the devil exists) and "elements of sanctification" (e.g. a validly ordained apostate priest confects the Blessed Sacrament to be profaned at a "black mass"). Does anyone really believe these "elements" lead the Satanist to Heaven?

 Francis is a product of Vatican II. Modernism wants a dogma-less, One World Religion. It was only a matter of time before sharing in the "one bread" of apostasy via "communion for all" would come to pass.

  • Canon 843 of the Vatican II Code of Canon Law states: "§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed." Translation: A Catholic (sic) minister ("priest") can give the sacraments to non-Catholics, who are unable to obtain them from a minister of their own peculiar sect. How can you "manifest the Catholic faith" in these sacraments if you're not Catholic? What if they have the correct understanding of the sacrament, but they deny other truths of Faith? No problem. They have "partial communion" with the Church.  

  • In 1992 Ratzinger, the future and now former, "Pope" Benedict XVI issued the Letter to the Bishops of The Catholic (sic) Church On Some Aspects Of The Church Understood As Communion. It states: "Indeed, 'through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature', for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present." Really? Compare Pope Pius IX, "He who leaves this [Roman] See cannot hope to remain within the Church; he who eats of the lamb outside of it has no part with God." (Amantissimus, 1862). A valid Mass is offered in persona Christi ("in the person of Christ), but an efficacious Mass must also be offered in persona Ecclesia ("In the person of the Church"). This the schismatics, such as the "Old Catholic" sect, cannot do.
  • In 1993, John Paul the Great Apostate ordered to be published the DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM. Paragraph #129 states: "At the same time, the Catholic Church teaches that by baptism members of other Churches and ecclesial Communities are brought into a real, even if imperfect communion, with the Catholic Church  and that 'baptism, which constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn... is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ'. The Eucharist is, for the baptized, a spiritual food which enables them to overcome sin and to live the very life of Christ, to be incorporated more profoundly in Him and share more intensely in the whole economy of the Mystery of Christ." (Emphasis mine). A real and imperfect communion simply by baptism, not even valid orders, somehow makes the "Eucharist" a way to share in the 'whole economy of the Mystery of Christ." (Whatever that means)
  • In 2015, the Vatican II "Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs"affirmed the 32 Agreed Statements and commended the document entitled the Declaration on the Way to Cardinal Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, for "further reflection and action." The Declaration states "Both traditional Catholic and traditional Lutheran approaches,then, different as they are in expression, affirm Christ’s real, substantial presence in the sacrament. In the faith of both churches, when one receives the Eucharistic elements or species, one truly receives the body and blood of Christ in a sacramental way, and so comes into communion with Christ, in order to be on a pilgrimage with him." Lutherans have no priesthood. They deny transubstantiation and replace it with the heresy of "consubstantiation." This heresy claims (a) the "assembly of believers" must be there for Christ to be present and (b) Christ is present "with the bread" and only for so long as the "Lord's Supper" is celebrated. They deny a sacrificial Mass offered by a priest (in public or private) and have no reservation of their "blessed sacrament." They render the meaning of Christ's words as "Here is My Body" rather than "This is My Body." The Lutheran "Communion" cracker, like the Vatican II sect cracker takes no one on a "pilgrimage with Christ." You can't travel with Someone you no longer follow. 

 The heretical ecclesiology of "partial communion" feeds into Frankie's intercommunion. The Vatican II sect has a service devoid of sacrifice, presided over by an invalid "minister of the Word." The "active participation" of people reading, responding, and passing out the bread is a must for the "priesthood of all believers." Lastly, all share in standing to receive the "host" in their hands, and must respond with faith "Amen." We can't let anyone think Christ would be present without the consent and belief of the assembly. This would give "cultic powers" to the so-called "priest."

A dogma-less, One World religion creeps closer by the day. I'm reminded of a line from George Orwell's   Animal Farm (slightly revised): "I looked from Lutherans to Vatican II, and from Vatican II to Lutherans, and I could no longer tell the difference."

        Monday, November 16, 2015

        Terrorized By Ecumenism

         As I write this post, at least 153 people have been killed in France by Moslem terrorists. The fact they were Islamic was hardly mentioned by the left-wing media for fear of being labeled "Islamophobic" (i.e. you have a mental disorder if you despise the teachings of Islam, just as opposition to sins against nature itself will get you labeled "homophobic"). France, the erstwhile "Eldest Daughter of the Catholic Church" and home to my patron saint, King St. Louis IX, has reaped the "rewards" of ecumenism. I pray for those poor people who have gone to meet their Maker in Judgement; were they in the State of Grace, or did they even care about religion at all after the Vatican II sect destroyed the Faith?

         "Pope" "Saint" John XXIII removed the words asking for the conversion of those "in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism" from the text of the prayer for the Consecration of the World to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. 

        "Pope" "Blessed" Paul VI signed the heretical document Nostra Aetate in 1965, which proclaims in paragraph #3, "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God." (Emphasis mine)

        "Pope" "Saint" John Paul II kissed the Koran and prayed, "May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam." Maybe he should be given the title "John Paul the Great Mohammedan."

        "Pope" Benedict XVI  called for Christians "to open their arms and hearts" to Moslem immigrants and "to dialogue" with them on religious issues. Ratzinger told participants that the Catholic (sic) Church is "increasingly aware" that "inter-religious dialogue is a part of its commitment to the service of humanity in the modern world."

        "Pope" Francis prayed towards Mecca and said, "Islam is a religion of peace, one which is compatible with respect for human rights and peaceful coexistence."


        1. The True Church does NOT regard Mohammedans as "worshiping the same God." Traditionalist Catholicism and Islam have competing theologies which are mutually exclusive. "Allah" is the name of a false moon "god" exalted by the false prophet Mohammed.  The psalmist tells us that  "All the Gods of the Gentiles are Devils" (Psalm 96:5) and hence to whom do they render their worship? The Scriptures tell us clearly " They provoked him by strange gods, and stirred him up to anger, with their abominations.  They sacrificed to devils and not to God: to gods whom they knew not: that were newly come up, whom their fathers worshiped not. "  (Deut 32:16- 17)

        They "sacrificed to devils and not to God" - regardless of whether or not they might have believed they were rendering homage to the True God, the reality is quite the contrary! It is an erroneous proposition to qualify a prayer addressed to the devil as authentic prayer. Islam is a false religion. It does not come from God, and those who follow it lose their soul.

        2. The Koran is an evil book written under demonic inspiration. Strong words? I own a copy. Here's what it teaches:

        "O ye who believe!  Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you; and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."  (Sura IX 123) Islam spread by means of violence. Catholicism spread by being persecuted and loving Her enemies along the way.

        "They do blaspheme who say: 'Allah is Christ the son of Mary.'  But said Christ: 'O Children of Israel!  Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.'  Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode.  There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help."  (Sura V 75) Islam says Christians go to Hell, and Christ is not Divine; He allegedly told others to worship the false moon "god" Allah.

        "O ye who believe!  Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors:  They are but friends and protectors to each other.  And he amongst you that turns to them (For friendship) is of them.  Verily Allah guided not a people unjust."  (Sura V 54) Mohammedans are told not to have Christians or Jews as friends.

        Also taught:
        Women are inferior to men (Sura IV 34)
        Men can, and even should, ‘beat’ their wives in some circumstances (Sura IV 34)
        Allah does not love the unbelievers (Sura III 32)

        3. The Koran Cannot Be Interpreted Peacefully

         "So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith: (Establish) Allah's handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made mankind: No change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that is the standard Religion: but most among mankind understand not."  (Sura XXX 30)  Traditionalists who commit violent acts do so in spite of  Church teaching to the contrary. Mohammedans who commit violent acts do so because of their false religion. It's history is one of violence.

         4. The Vatican II Sect Has Allowed Islam To Flourish

         Gone are the days when St Francis of Assisi met Sultan Al Malik Al Kamil. The Saint told him, "If you wish to convert to Christ, and your people with you, I will most gladly remain among you out of love for Him. If you are hesitant about abandoning the law of Mohammed for the faith of Christ, order an immense fire to be lit; I will enter into it with your priests and you will see which is the surer and holier of the two creeds, and which one you must follow."  There was no "esteem" for the false religion shown, and peace was by conversion.

        Gone are the days of King St. Louis IX and Pope St. Pius V who fought to keep the infidels out of Catholic Europe. Vatican II welcomed them in with "open arms," rejected Catholicism as the State religion, and NOW France decides to close its boarders when the blood of her citizens runs red in the streets from Islamic terrorists.

        Gone are the days when artificial contraception, abortion, and euthanasia were banned and large families flourished. "Christian" Europe is shrinking while the Moslem hordes breed us out of existence.


        • Islam is a false religion inspired by Satan. We do not worship the "same God " as Moslems do. Mohammedans worship the devil and must be converted.
        • The Koran is an evil book of hate and violence. It leads to violence and cannot be interpreted "peacefully." Those who are not violent do so against the teachings of their false faith.
        • Islam was born in violence and perpetuates it.
        • The Vatican II sect has allowed God's enemies to prosper by its heretical faith and decadent morals.

         We must call upon God to help us as never before. If the errors of Vatican II are not stopped soon, the bodies will pile up as Islam seeks to eradicate us, and we may see it all happen "Nostra Aetate" ("In Our Time").
         King St. Louis IX, Victor over the Saracens, Pray for us!   

        Monday, November 9, 2015

        Never Forget The Cross

         Anyone who has had the misfortune of attending the Novus Bogus "mass" of the Vatican II sect will immediately get the idea that the service is about them, not God. It's about "the assembly" getting together and having a good time to commemorate the Lord's Supper. The emphasis is upon enjoying a meal, not renewing the unbloody sacrifice of the Cross. Much emphasis is given to the Resurrection and the sacrificial death of Christ is downplayed in what has been referred to as Vatican II's "Paschal Theology."

         I got a good insight into this new Soteriology (that branch of theology which deals with the Redemption of the human race) when I came across an early writing from the Vatican II sect:

         "It would be excessive to think that it might have been necessary to wait for Vatican II because, again, the term and the theology of the Paschal mystery was very much alive in the Church and was a part of the Church. However, it has to be recognized that such a rediscovery did not take too long to occur. The last and most important liturgical document prior to Vatican II, Pius XII's 1947 encyclical, Mediator Dei, did not as yet employ the term. It speaks of redemption and does not insist at all on Our Lord Jesus Christ's resurrection. It keeps to the viewpoint that posits the death of Jesus Christ-- the central salvific event, and still does not emphasize that His Resurrection is as much, and in an essential way, the event of the world's salvation." (See Dictionary of the Second Vatican Council (Corpus Books, Washington, D.C., first edition, 1968) "Paschal Mystery," Fr. Adrien Nocent, O.S.B., and Jacques Deretz eds.--Emphasis mine)

         The Modernist heretics who produced this book lie, as all Modernism is a lie. Pope Pius XII's great encyclical Mediator Dei did not employ the term for a very good reason; it wasn't orthodox, it is heretical. The Modernists, driven underground by Pope St. Pius X, kept the false teaching that Christ's Resurrection was equal to His death in effectuating our redemption. Modernism sees all dogmas as in continual "evolution," from one meaning to another. The great Pontiff condemned such errors in this encyclical as:
        "... one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table-form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See." (para. # 62)

         All the things condemned by Pope Pius XII have been implemented and lauded by the Vatican II hierarchy. Altars were ripped out and replaced by tables; black was removed as a liturgical color and replaced by white (Yea! He's dead! Must be in Heaven so let's celebrate!); and the traditional crucifix was replaced in many of the sects churches with the crosses showing the resurrected Christ and not His wounded, suffering Corpus. Yet they claim Mediator Dei was a step in the direction of Vatican II!!

         The Second Vatican Robber Council's heretical document Sancrosanctum Concilium (On the Liturgy) says in paragraph # 106:

        "....the Church celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the Lord's day or Sunday. For on this day Christ's faithful are bound to come together into one place. They should listen to the word of God and take part in the Eucharist, thus calling to mind the passion, resurrection, and glory of the Lord Jesus, and giving thanks to God who "has begotten them again, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead, unto a living hope" (I Pet. 1:3)."

         Notice that there is no mention of the Mass as a True propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead, and the resurrection is put on par with Christ's Passion and death on the cross. So what does the True Church teach about redemption? Is the Resurrection really " as much, and in an essential way, the event of the world's salvation" ?

         According to theologian Pohle: "Considered from the distinctive viewpoint of Soteriology, the Resurrection of Christ was not, strictly speaking, the chief, nor even a contributing cause of our redemption; but it was an essential compliment thereof, and constituted its triumphant consummation. (a) The Catholic Church regards the Resurrection as an integral, though not an essential, element of the atonement." (See Dogmatic Theology,  B. Herder Book, Co. (1935), 5:102).

         The "Paschal Mystery Theology" compliments the Modernism of Vatican II. "Pope" Francis hides his cross from the Jews. Let's forget what Our Savior did for us. We all have a glorious Resurrection awaiting us, so let's try and eliminate all human suffering and see it as useless. There is no subjective redemptive value in suffering or making sacrifices; strive to feel good and forget sin and the price that He paid. Don't get caught up in "small-minded rules" and "who am I to judge?"  What they fail to realize is that we must follow a suffering Savior. There is no Crown of Glory without going through a Crown of Thorns in this "valley of tears." Francis is ashamed of the cross and wants everyone to forget about it. However, it is Christ Himself that tells us that in order to achieve a glorious Resurrection, a person must first "...deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me." (St. Matthew 16:24).

        Monday, November 2, 2015

        A "Laver of Regeneration" No More

         Many times I have posted regarding Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as extraordinary means of obtaining both Church membership and salvation at the moment of death. The Feenyites (both sedevacantist and Vatican II sect) are always ready to pounce on any exposition regarding this matter of established Church doctrine which must be believed in order for someone to be a Catholic. Instead, they should be more worried about the revised baptisms produced by the Second Vatican Robber Council and in use since at least 1972.  I have always maintained that all the sacraments of the Vatican II sect are invalid except for most baptisms and marriages, since there is no need for a priest to validly confer either sacrament and the basic matter and form remain. I have been doing some research on this subject and I would like to revise my prior statement based on my findings: Some baptisms and marriages may be valid in the Vatican II sect not most.

         I've changed my conviction based on some very serious considerations I'd like to share with you. First, I will set out Traditional Church teaching, followed by the revisions made to baptism in the Vatican II sect.


        According to theologian Prummer, baptism is "the sacrament of regeneration through water in words" (quoting the Catechism of the Council of Trent). The effects of baptism by Divine Law are six: 1. The bestowal of the Baptismal character (even if the sacrament is unlawfully administered or received); 2. the remission of all sin; 3. the remission of all punishment; 4. the bestowal of Grace, virtues, and the gifts; 5. the bestowal of sacramental grace; 6. incorporation in the Church. (See Handbook of Moral Theology, 1957; pgs. 252 and 254)

         The proper minister for lawful reception is a priest, and for valid reception, any person who has attained the use of reason. The remote matter of the sacrament is pure, natural water. The form of the sacrament, to be employed while the water (proximate matter) is flowing over the face or forehead is, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (See Prummer, Ibid, pgs. 252-256). The intention of the minister is to remit Original Sin, infuse Grace, and make the person a member of the Catholic Church.

        The sacrament is so necessary to salvation, Christ made it very hard to invalidate it.


         Most Protestant sects acknowledge Baptism as a sacrament, so why all the changes by Vatican II in the rite? The Modernists wanted to bring it in alignment with the new and heretical ecclesiology, whereby one is more or less part of the Church according to "degrees of participation." Hence, the inversion of the primary and secondary effects of the sacrament (the usual ploy of the Modernist heretics), so that Original Sin is hardly mentioned, and emphasis is on "full participation in the Christian community." 

        According to the Vatican II sect's Christian Initiation, General Introduction, no. 4, 1973, "...baptism is the sacrament by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacramental bond of unity linking all who have been signed by it." Really? "All who have been signed by it"? This would include validly baptized adults in heretical and schismatic sects--welcome to the new ecclesiology. 

        As theologian Henry Davis teaches, "In conferring the sacraments, (as also in the consecration in Mass), it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course." (See Moral and Pastoral Theology,Sheed and Ward, 1935; 3:27). As previously stated, it is very hard to invalidate the sacrament of baptism, but where there's an evil will, the Modernists find an evil way. Yes, the matter is still water, and yes, the form is the substantially the same (substituting "you" for "thee" and "Holy Spirit" for "Holy Ghost" nevertheless retains the same meaning). 

         However, there are problems in many cases. With regard to the matter and form, many times the "priest" will 
        • flick water over the hair so as to preclude contact with the skin
        • dip his fingers in the water and touch the forehead, not signifying a true ablution (washing) from sin
        • separate the recitation of the form (words) from the water flowing on the recipient (proximate matter), sometimes by a long interval
        • change the form to be politically correct (as one "priest" in Boston did by baptizing, "In the name of God the Creator, and of Jesus the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.")

         It will be protested that these are "abuses" and the integral rite retains the valid matter and form. However, there is a problem with the intention that could be inherent in the rite for those who use it. To begin with, the new rite calls itself, "The Rite of Christian Initiation" (one for adults, another for children). Absent are:
        • The exorcisms
        • The requirement a saint's name be used
        • Godparents' playing an active role
        • emphasis on remission of Original sin
        It now seems a mere "welcoming ceremony" as in many Protestant sects that do not validly baptize. The Council of Trent infallibly decreed that the minister of the sacrament must have the intention of "at least doing what the Church does." According to theologian B. Leeming (Principles of Sacramental Theology [Westminster MD: Newman 1956)], 482)--- "This principle { A priest or bishop who confers a sacrament doesn't have to “prove” that he intends to do what the Church does. He is automatically presumed to intend what the rite means} is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be theologically rash… the minister is presumed to intend what the rite means.." (Emphasis mine)

        But the rite has been changed---it was changed after the principles of the most heretical Protestants when they tampered with the rite of baptism in the 1500s. These baptisms are considered invalid. We must distinguish between false ideas in the intellect, and the intention which is an act of the will. If a baby is dying and the child's mother asks a non-Catholic nurse to baptize him, as long as that nurse intends to perform the baptism as instituted by Christ (in accordance with the mother's wishes with proper matter and form applied), the sacrament is valid. Therefore, personally held views that are heretical and erroneous regarding the sacrament of baptism do not render it invalid, as long as the sect's "priests" think they are repeating and performing the rite established by Christ and doing what the Church does using correct matter and form.

         However, in his A Treatise on Baptism, theologian Kendrick writes, "The belief in [baptism's] efficacy to remit sin is not indeed necessary for its valid performance: but may we not fear that the prevailing errors concerning its being a mere form of association to the visible Church, utterly void of all spiritual efficacy, may so pervert the intention of the person who baptizes that he may propose to himself rather to comply with an established usage and form, than seriously to administer an institution of Christ Our Lord?" What Kendrick wrote about Protestant baptism in 1852 could easily apply to the Vatican II sect today. The revised rites, all in use since January 6, 1972, have a heretical concept driving them. They are now administered by invalidly ordained "priests" taught heresy in sodomite-filled seminaries where many may think baptism is just an empty rite, even as Original sin means "evil in the world" but is not an actual deprivation of grace. They do NOT intend to seriously administer an institution of Christ, in which case the baptism would be invalid!

         My conclusion: some Vatican II baptisms are valid, and some are not--even ones where matter and form are correctly applied. This opens another can of worms: Marriages in the sect between a member validly baptized and one invalidly so. The consequences of the new rite of baptism are staggering.

         Few receive the miracle of Baptism of Desire. Thanks to Vatican II and the false "popes," this venue might be the only hope for many of their followers.

        Monday, October 26, 2015

        Christus Regnat

         On the Traditionalist Roman Catholic calendar, October 25, 2015, marks the feast of Christ the King. The Vatican II sect celebrates the "Thirtieth Sunday of Ordinary Time." (Very ordinary, indeed, as they have jettisoned the True Faith, Morals, and Sacraments for Modernism and an invalid bread and wine service). The sect will observe its "Christ the King" on November 22, the Sunday before Advent. The Feast of Christ the King was ordered established--and to be celebrated every year on the last Sunday of October--by Pope Pius XI in his famous encyclical Quas Primas of December 11, 1925. From this encyclical, three lessons are clearly taught:

        1. God is the Supreme Being. All societies, nations, and States owe submission to God as their Creator and Final End. 
        2. Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, has received from God, in His humanity, all power in Heaven and upon Earth. He has authority and sovereignty over every other authority. He is invested with a  true royal power that is shared with the pope and bishops.
        3. It is obvious, according to the teachings enumerated above, that all Constitutions and legislation have Jesus Christ and His One True Church as their head and foundation. 

         December 7, 1965 will mark the 50th anniversary of the Vatican II sect's heretical declaration Dignitatis Humanae.   Christ's Kingship is perverted and reduced to a mere "Lordship over our personal life," and eliminated over society. This idea was adopted by other heretical societies, all too happy to rejoice that the Vatican II sect was willing to be "first among equals" with other false religions and disassemble the Catholic Countries across the world. Anglican, Lutheran, and other heretics celebrate this revised and evil concept the Sunday before Advent. One female minister, Carol Reynolds, of the First Congregational Church (sic), had this to say on their feast of Christ the King in 2011:

        [The feast of Christ the King means] Christ is the light that shines in each one of us. Christ transcends Christianity. Meet the Cosmic Christ.Why are many of us meeting this Christ for the first time this morning? According to former Dominican and now Episcopalian priest Matthew Fox, this image of the Christ has been obscured by fruits of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution: scientific investigation,industrial development, and medical advances. With the new knowledge and discoveries, the universe suddenly lost its sacredness and came to be viewed as more technical and machine-like than awesome and mystical. And, at the same time, the Western world began to think in more individualistic terms, leading many Christians to focus specifically on personal salvation, often at the cost of the health of God’s creation, human and nonhuman. In his creation-based spirituality, Fox asserts that we need to re-imagine a living cosmology for our time. He writes, 'The holy trinity of science (or knowledge of creation), mysticism (or experiential union with creation and its un-nameable mysteries), and art (or expression of our awe at creation) is what constitutes a living cosmology.'

        Where does this Reign of Christ leave the rest of the world’s faiths and cultures? Matthew Fox believes THAT this Cosmic Christ connects us to all peoples and that it is a principle discernible within the wisdom traditions of all world religions. He calls the movement to unleash this universal wisdom for the common good "deep ecumenism" and believes the heart of the Cosmic Christ is the figure of Jesus as Sophia or Wisdom. For Fox this is the perfect bridge between Christianity and other faiths. (Emphasis mine).

        With the Vatican II sect denying absolute truth and seeing  "degrees of truth" in other sects, this new and heretical concept of Christ's kingship becomes easily understandable. When one begins to doubt the  veracity of the Catholic Religion as  the One True Church, it logically follows that there is no reason to proclaim the Catholic faith as the State religion and refuse public worship to false sects. Christ and His Church are banished from public life.

         It began with the arch-heretic, Fr. John Courtney Murray, spreading his errors on Church-State relations in the late 1940s. On July 7, 1954, The Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani, condemned four of Murray's teachings as "erroneous doctrinal positions," to wit:

        a) The Catholic confessional State, professing itself as such, is not an ideal to which organized political society is universally obliged.

        (b)Full religious liberty can be considered as a valid political ideal in a truly democratic State.

        (c) The State organized on a genuinely democratic basis must be considered to have done its duty when it
        has guaranteed the freedom of the Church by a general guarantee of liberty of religion.

        (d) It is true that Leo XIII has said "states must follow that way of worshiping the divinity which God Himself has shown that he desires." (Encyclical Immortale Dei). Words such as these can be understood as referring to the State considered as organized on a basis other than that of the perfectly democratic State but to this latter strictly speaking are not applicable.

        In 1958, Cardinal Ottaviani had drawn up 21 propositions of Murray's for formal condemnation. Unfortunately, the death of Pope Pius XII and usurpation of the papal title by Angelo Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII) prevented their approval. At Vatican II, Murray and his Modernist comrades would have their day. What was previously condemned by all popes and the approved theologians of the Church, would become official teaching!

        "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX, CONDEMNED proposition #15, 1864)

        "This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits." (Vatican II Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, para. # 2, 1965)

        "This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin." (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, para. #14, 1832)

        "In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. " (Vatican II Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, para. # 3, 1965)

        Here's what theologian Tanquerey had to say about the True Church teaching pre-Vatican II:

        Freedom of Conscience and of Worship
        I. Principles
        a) True freedom of conscience is given to us, namely, the right to embrace and profess the true religion according to the laws laid upon us by God or by an authority set up by God.

        b) But absolute freedom of conscience must be rejected, that is, the right to choose a religion which is more pleasing, or the right to decide on a religion according to the sole light of the individual's reason.

        c) When a religion is concerned with internal acts only, God alone is the judge in this matter.

        d)  When a religion is manifested by external acts and, in a special manner, by a cult or a rite, the ecclesiastical and civil authorities have the right and duty to prohibit those acts, which are harmful to the social good. (See A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Declee Company, 1959 1:166-167; italics in original)

        Vatican II apologist Thomas Storck tries to "reconcile" obvious contradictory teaching thus:

        "What about the repeated declarations in "Dignitatis Humanae" about religious freedom as a personal human right? The Council proclaims, I think, an abstract human right, but a right that is not necessarily fully applicable in any given circumstance or place. Because of the "dignity of the human person" man does indeed have a right to religious liberty, in fact, by giving us a free will God has necessarily given us a kind of religious liberty, including the liberty to err. But this does not mean that this liberty may be exercised without reference to anything else. There are many rights that are contingent upon circumstances. Man, for example, has a right to marry. But what of those who are impotent or who cannot find anyone to marry?"

         Storch misses the point. The old axiom is, "Error has no rights." No person has a "right" to choose a false religion. It's an abuse of freewill. That's like saying someone has an abstract "right to commit murder." Murder of the body is actually less pernicious than the murder of the soul by heresy. (See St. Matthew 10:28) The right to marry was never condemned by the Church. Religious liberty was so anathematized.

         The results of this new concept of Christ as King over private lives only has had its horrible effects. John Paul the Great Apostate urged Catholic States in Europe, such as Italy, to remove the special status of the Church as the State religion. To give but one example, formerly Catholic Spain, a bastion of the Faith, now reports these sad statistics in 2010 after dropping Catholicism as the official religion in 1975:

        According to a study by the Spanish Centre for Sociological Research in 2014 about 68% of Spaniards self-identify as Catholics, 2% other faith, and about 27% identify as atheists or declare they have no religion. Most Spaniards do not participate regularly in religious worship. This same study shows that of the Spaniards who identify themselves as religious, 61% barely ever goes to mass, 14% go to mass few times a year, 10% few times per month and 14% every Sunday or multiple times per week. Although a majority of Spaniards are Catholics, most, especially those of the young generation, ignore the Church's conservative moral doctrines on issues such as pre-marital sex, sexual orientation or contraception.

         This is yet another consequence of the perverted Vatican II sect and its new teaching on the Kingship of Christ. Truly, it's been said, "Where the Lord does not reign, Satan takes the Throne."

        Monday, October 19, 2015

        Emasculating The Church

         The Vatican II sect continues its quest to stamp out every last vestige of Catholicism from its ranks. At their "Synod on the Family," Canadian "Archbishop" Paul-Andre Durocher of Gatineau, Quebec, said the Synod should consider the possibility of allowing for female "deacons" as it seeks "ways to open up more opportunities for women in church (sic) life."  (See

         Let's be clear: the goal of the Modernists is strict egalitarianism. All religions are more or less good and lead to Heaven. Women and men are not called to different vocations. Females and males are the same, not only insofar as they are created in the image and likeness of God, but they must be called to do everything equally in the "Church." In 1968, the new rites of ordination to deacon and priest (as well as consecration to the episcopacy) were rendered null and void--just like Anglican Orders which were declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII in 1896. Hence Mr. Durocher is a layman, having been "ordained" a priest in 1982, and "consecrated" a bishop in 1997. (His boss, Jorge Bergoglio, is also an apostate layman, so as the teenagers are wont to say, "It's all good.")

         If the Sacrament of Holy Orders is already invalid, why a push for women as deacons? Because just as "same sex marriage" puts male and female in roles God never intended (indeed, has forbidden), parity of females with men in churches is a spiritual perversion of God's supernatural order of things. The Modernists always soften things up incrementally. First, "altar girls" now known by the gender-inclusive term "altar servers." (Ironically, they should be called waiters and waitresses since there are no altars, just tables to eat bread and drink wine). Then, to show a facade of  being "traditional," in a 1994 letter, Ordinatio Sacredotalis,  then-"Pope" John Paul II wrote: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." Even Frankie has written in Evangellii Gaudium: "The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion."

         In order to change, they must admit deaconesses first. There are already women who read at the Novus Bogus "mass," distribute "communion" and "nuns" (mostly glorified lesbian social workers) who offer "communion services" at "priestless parishes." Once deaconesses are in, they can begin to "reexamine" the older declarations and find some pretense as to why they no longer apply to bar priestesses and female bishops. Remember you read it here when it comes to pass. Mr. Durocher is doing the dirty work of groups like Roman Catholic (sic) Women Priests. According to their website: "Mission: 'A new model of ordained ministry in a renewed Roman Catholic (sic) Church.'"

        They further write: "Statement on Apostolic Succession
        The ordinations of Roman Catholic Womenpriests are valid because of our apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church. The principal consecrating Roman Catholic male bishops who ordained our first women bishops are bishops with apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, our bishops validly ordain deacons, priests and bishops. Consequently, all qualified candidates, including baptized ministers and priests from other Christian traditions, who are presented to our bishops for ordination are ordained by the laying on of hands in apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic Church. The ordination rite has all the same essential parts as the rite used for male candidates and deacons." (Emphasis mine) The apostate women in this sect and within the Vatican II sect are "welcoming" to any false creeds, as well as sodomites. Many are bisexual or lesbian. They dare to seek a role Christ did not give to the His Immaculate Mother. If any human being was worthy of the sacrerdotal dignity, it was the Blessed Virgin Mary. It has nothing to do with "discrimination" and everything to do with God's plan for men and woman being different in the Church.  

         What does the True Roman Catholic Church teach about the ordination of females? According to theologian Tanquerey: "First, by divine law only men who are wayfarers, of the masculine sex, can validly receive the sacrament of orders. Women are absolutely incapable of receiving any order whatsoever. 

        Proof from Scripture. Priests and deacons must preach but according to St. Paul: "Let women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted them to speak but to be subject" [I Cor. 14:34-35]. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach. [I Tim., 2 et seq.] 

        Proof from Tradition. St. Irenaus, St. Epiphanius, St. Augustine and others regarded as heretics the Pepuzians, the Marcosians and the Collyridians who proclaimed women capable of the priesthood and of sacrifice, and listed their teaching among the heresies. The Code teaches similarly: Canon 968 sec. 1." (See A Manuel of Dogmatic Theology, Desclee Company, 1959, 2:361--Italics in original). 

        For those who claim deaconesses were ordained in the early Church, theologian Pohle notes that the "ordination" was considered a mere blessing and whose main duties were to guard the doors and maintain order among those of their own sex in Church, to instruct them privately in the Faith, and other strictly non-sacerdotal functions. (See The Sacraments B.Herder Book Co., 1924, 4:126-127).

         Having filled their ranks with sodomites, the lesbian former "nuns" will soon join the Vatican II clergy as deaconesses as the first step to the One-World Ecumenical and Egalitarian Sect which will emerge as the ultimate bitter fruit of the Second Vatican Council. In the not-to-distant future, you might stumble into one of their temples to hear "Mother Gloria Steinem" give a sermon on the goodness of abortion, and "bless" the congregants "In the name of the Mother/Father and of the Christ Child and of the Holy Spirit." Spiritual castration complete.

        Monday, October 12, 2015

        Beware The Bizarre

         Traditionalists often get a bad reputation. Many people will see us as "eccentric." A lot of it we bring on ourselves when we exalt apparitions and other private revelations over dogma and the teachings of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians. Some of it comes when we are affiliated (wrongly) with some strange people or groups who claim ties to Traditionalists or attempt to engage us in argumentation so as to persuade us to join them. I will discuss three such individuals/groups that should be avoided at all costs. If someone asks you about them, I hope to arm you with enough information so that you can explain why they have nothing to do with Traditionalists, nor do they represent our theological positions.

        1. Eucharist and Mission Blog (Lionel Andrades)
           I wrote about this individual twice before (see my posts of  6/22/15 and 6/29/15), but I bring him up yet again because I was informed that he misrepresented my remarks (he did) and claimed that I (along with Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn) would "not answer" three questions he poses. The fact is everyone ignores him because (at the risk of sounding uncharitable) he needs (a) prayers for conversion, (b) a decent education, and (c) lithium. He is a "Vatican II Feeneyite," i.e., he not only accepts the heresies of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II "popes", but he denies Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as being sufficient for Church membership and salvation without Baptism with water.

         Unlike the "Dimond Brothers" at Most Holy Family Monastery who are sedevacantist-Fenneyites and twist the teachings of the Church beyond recognition regarding BOD and BOB, Andrades has a twisted theory that is as ridiculous as it is amusing and pathetic. He attempts to salvage both Vatican II and Fennyism by making a distinction between "visible/invisible" and "implicit/explicit." According to Andrades, since no one can see the dead, we don't know if anyone is in Heaven without Baptism in water, so BOD and BOB are "implicit" and hypothetical. Likewise, when Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican II claims that Christ uses Protestant sects as a "means of salvation," we can't see the dead, so it's hypothetical for us in 2015 and is consistent with pre-Vatican II ecclesiology. He claims you can read the documents of Vatican II with "Cushingism" (his neologism for Richard Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston who condemned Fr. Feeney) and "Feeneyism."  He even makes obviously historically inaccurate remarks, such as BOD and BOB without being followed by Baptism with water started with the Baltimore Catechism in the 19th century. (I guess he never read St. Thomas Aquinas expounding on the subject written in the 13th century; and I can go back much farther.).

        Andrades doesn't understand the problem, so he'll never comprehend the answer. From his blog in red:

        It is a dogma of the church that all need the baptism of water for salvation.
        It is not a dogma of the Church that BOD is sufficient and must exclude the baptism of water.

        The Church teaches infallibly that BOD and BOB are sufficient for salvation without Baptism by water through Her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Here are but a few examples:

         A letter of Pope Innocent II to the Bishop of Cremona (1140) reads:

        We answer to your question: The presbyter who died without the water of baptism, since he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, we affirm without any doubt that he became free of the original sin and reached the joy of eternal life" (Denzinger n. 388--Emphasis mine).

        Pope Innocent III in his letter Debitum pastoralis of 1206 (well before the Baltimore Catechism) states:

        "You have communicated to us that a certain Jew, at the edge of dying as he was only among Jews, immersed himself in water saying: ‘I baptize myself in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.’

        We answer saying that the baptizer and the one who receives baptism must be different persons, as we infer from the words of the Lord when, speaking to His Apostles, He said: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc (Matt 28:19). Therefore, the mentioned Jew must be baptized again by another person to show that one is the baptizer and another is the one who receives the baptism. … Nonetheless, if he would have died immediately, he would have flown instantly to the celestial homeland for his faith in the Sacrament rather than for the Sacrament of the Faith "(Denzinger n. 413--Emphasis mine).

        Pope Pius XII:
        “In the present economy there is no other way of communicating [sanctifying grace] to the child who has not yet the use of reason [other than Baptism]. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.” (Address to Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951, qtd. in John McCarthy, Problems in Theology, Vol. I (Newman Press, 1956), p. 53--Emphasis mine)

        The 1917 Code of Canon Law:

        "Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words." (Canon 737--Emphasis mine)

        "Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized." (Canon 1239--Emphasis mine)

        The Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law and cannot teach error. It was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.

        Anyway these cases are hypothetical.You and Bishop Sanborn do not know of any specific case. So how can you assume in principle that there are persons saved as such or going to be saved as such when you do not know and cannot know of any specific case?. How can you make a theoretical rule when no one in Church in history could know of any case?

        First, we DO know of some specific cases: From the Roman Martyrology:

        "January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, a Virgin and Martyr. She was just a catechumen when she was stoned by the Gentiles while praying on the tomb of St. Agnes, who was her foster-sister."

        "April 12: At Braga in Portugal, the martyr St. Victor, who, although only a catechumen, refused to adore an idol, and confessed Jesus Christ with great constancy. After suffering many torments, he was beheaded, and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood."

        "June 22: At Verulam in England, in the time of Diocletian, St. Alban, martyr, who gave himself up in order to save a cleric whom he had harbored. After being scourged and subjected to bitter torments, he was sentenced to capital punishment. With him also suffered one of the soldiers who led him to execution, for he was converted to Christ on the way and merited to be baptized in his own blood. St. Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion."

        "June 28: At Alexandria, in the persecution of Severus, the holy martyrs Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides a catechumen, Heron a neophyte, another Serenus, Rháis a catechumen, Potamioena, and Marcella her mother."(All emphasis above in the Roman Martyrology is mine). 

        We know they died as catechumens. We know catechumens are unbaptized or they wouldn't be called catechumens had they received the sacrament with water. They were "baptized in their blood" and are listed as saints in the authoritative Roman Martyrology . It can't be wrong because the Church is infallible in declaring people saints. Otherwise, we might be praying to the damned; such is unthinkable. So here are your specific cases, Mr. Andrades. If they can happen then they can happen in 2015! 

          Second, Andrades sounds like a bad inverse of the movie The Sixth Sense---"I can't see dead people!"
        The most important principle he won't acknowledge is that hypothetical statements can be heresy!

        If someone said "Christ COULD commit sin" this is heresy because Christ is God, and God can't go against His Own Nature. It doesn't matter that we can't see Christ commit sin, so it's only invisible and implicit for us in 2015. It's heresy. Likewise, I can flip Andrades weird verification criteria on him. In 1950, Pope Pius XII canonized St. Maria Goretti. He couldn't see her in Heaven; he can't see the dead. No one can see her now in 2015, so how do we know she is in Heaven? By the authority of the Church! The same Church that authoritatively decrees that four catechumens are saints in Heaven baptized by there own blood. No "seeing the dead" is needed. When Vatican II states Protestant sects are a "means of salvation" you'll never find proof because it can't happen---but just as "an hypothesis" it is heresy, as it contradicts the True Faith. 

        His three questions to me:
        1.Baptism of desire (BOD) is not relevant to EENS. So why does Fr. Anthony Cekada say the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious, at the St. Benedict Centers USA, are in mortal sin for not accepting BOD with reference to EENS.
        It has nothing to do with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS) "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation." It has to do with HOW membership is obtained. St. Benedict Center denies BOB and BOD as understood by the Church and are in mortal sin.
        2.The SBC say they accept BOD and it will be followed with the baptism of water.These are hypothetical cases. Why does Fr. Cekaga(sic) consider hypothetical cases as being exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS?
        Once again, it has nothing to do with EENS. BOD is sufficient in and of itself. They deny Church teaching. Hypothetical statements can be heresy. 
        3.So why does the professor at the sedevacantist seminary make this claim that they are in in mortal sin? Is he not wrong?
        No, he is not wrong.

        Mr. Andrades will continue to repeat the same drivel, and accuse those who disagree with his heresy "illogical" and "irrational" even after all this has been explained to him. It won't register. I wonder how he considers his "popes" not heretical since they can't see the irrationality and preach near universal salvation in a one-world religion. JPII, Benedict XVI, and now Francis, would all disagree with him. If they are irrational, they can't be popes, for habitual insanity precludes one from holding papal office. If they are not irrational and perpetrate this alleged error, they are heretics and can't be popes. The Holy Ghost is supposed to guide the "pope", but Lionel Andrades is better guided (so he thinks). 

        Do not engage this man. Pray for him.

        2. The Palmarian Church

         Unlike most conclavists who think they can elect a "pope" anyway they choose (e.g. David Bawden aka "Pope" Michael), this group has started a new sect based on private revelations. On March 30, 1968, a group in Palmar de Troya, Spain began claiming supernatural revelations from apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

        The apparitions involved four pre-teen girls – Ana Aguilera, Ana García, Rafaela Gordo and Josefa Guzmán – who said they saw Mary while picking flowers one day. The locals went to the spot of the miracle where all kinds of strange phenomena were claimed to have taken place. These involved occurrences  such as a local woman seeming to glow from within, a man running around on his knees at an incredible speed, hosts materializing on people’s tongues, and miraculous healings.

        The Blessed Virgin was supposedly giving messages regarding the Antichrist, and a man named Clemente Dominguez became the "official seer" of Palmar de Troya. He claimed to have received the "stigmata" (Wounds of Christ), but one only needs to look at the photos to see it looks like he squirted himself with ketchup. He attracted quite a following, including some rather wealthy people who contributed large sums of money. He contacted Archbishop Peter Thuc, who fell for the story, and in January 1976, Abp. Thuc ordained and then consecrated Dominguez and four of his friends as priests and bishops using the Traditional Rite of the Church. Abp. Thuc was "excommunicated" by Montini (Paul VI) and then reconciled, before breaking away to ordain some sane men as bishops in this time of near Universal Apostasy.

        Dominguez didn't understand Latin and had no formal training, so "Mary" conveniently revealed that Spanish was God's favorite language after Latin, and Spanish could be used in the Mass and sacraments.Dominguez lost both his eyes in a car crash, and it was revealed that when Montini died, he would be the next pope as "Gregory XVII."  God would publicly restore his sight after he became "pope" on TV so all would know he was the true pontiff. He then said "Mary" revealed what some have called the "crooked ears theory." Montini was a good and holy pope, but had been drugged and locked up in a closet shortly after his election by Masons. They had one of their own replace him by using plastic surgery to look like him, and that's how Vatican II was promulgated. If you look at photos before and after 1964, you will supposedly notice that post January 1964 photos show him with crooked ears--an imperfection that the Masons overlooked and "proof" of this goofball story.

         After Montini died, Dominguez was "mystically crowned pope" by Christ Himself, and called the First Palmarian Ecumenical Council. Things got super-weird at this point. Every priest in his sect was also a bishop. Since Dominguez had no training and attempted to translate the rites into Spanish, his ordinations and consecrations are dubious at best. He declared that Palmar de Troya and not Rome, would now be the seat of the Church (the pope must always be bishop of Rome--this is heretical). His "Palmarian Creed" declared Mary the "Irredeemed," for She who is without sin had no need of redemption (Pure heresy. Pope Pius IX, in his infallible declaration on the Immaculate Conception Ineffabilis Deus, declared that Mary was redeemed "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ"--in a unique manner prior to His death, which God knew with certainty would happen).

        He declared John XXIII, Paul VI, and Francisco Franco as "saints." He is accused as having molested several of the nuns in his sect before he died in 2005. His successor, Manuael Alonso Corral, succeeded him as Peter II, but he died six years later. He was succeeded by the currently reigning “pontiff” – Sergio Maria – who took the name Gregory XVIII. Dominguez was "canonized" as "Pope St. Gregory the Very Great."
        They have proclaimed the "real presence" of Mary in the Host with Christ, and the bodily assumption of St. Joseph, as dogmas.

        At the present time, the Palmarian church claims to have 60 bishops, 70 nuns, and 2,000 followers.
        Here's a copy of their whacky rules:
        "1. Woman may not wear trousers.
        2. Shorts are banned
        3. It is forbidden to wear any shirt or similar garment with short sleeves.
        4. Sleeves can only be rolled up for the duration of any work such as washing dishes etc.
        5. Females must wear skirts no shorter than two fingers width below the knee.
        6. Tights are banned as they are classed as mens attire. Female teens and adults may only wear stockings, female children only socks.
        7. Female babies cannot wear all in one baby suits.
        8. Shirts and blouses must be buttoned to the neck.
        9. You cannot play any sport that requires you to wear short sleeves or shorts.
        10. Visiting beaches is banned.
        11. All voting banned. e.g. Local and general elections, referendums etc.
        12. Visiting and using swimming pools is banned.
        13. Visiting night clubs is banned
        14. Denim cloth is banned, therefore wearing jeans is banned.
        15. Listening to popular / modern music is banned.
        16. Watching boxing matches is banned.
        17. Attending non-Palmarian religious services such as weddings, funerals, christenings etc is banned, for all non Palmarians even family.
        18. Males are banned from dying or bleaching hair
        19. Males cannot wear ear jewelry or other face jewelry.
        20. Receiving organ transplants is banned.
        21. Leaving or providing organs for transplant is banned.
        22. All contraception is banned.
        23. Disco’s are banned.
        24. Later introduced in addition to rule 16, All functions associated with non Palmarian religious services such as wedding breakfasts, evening functions, i.e. social functions before or after, christenings, weddings, funerals etc are banned you cannot attend even if function is family or relatives.
        25. Later above rule no. 5 was changed to increase the length of skirts below the knee from 2 to 4 or 5 fingers width.
        26. Children must be told Christmas presents are from parents and not Santa Claus as he doesn’t exist
        27. New Bible introduced, any copies of any other bibles must be burnt. This bible was authored in Spain and has many changes in comparison to the standard bible.
        28. TV programs that have people or cartoon characters outside the Palmarian dress code may not be watched. In effect this is most television, it would encompass news, documentaries, etc. etc.
        29. No social contact with any persons not dressed to the Palmarian dress code. This in effect means virtually all non-Palmarians.
        30. Nobody allowed in the home if not dressed to Palmarian dress code except workmen.
        31. In work, contact with non-palmarian co-workers must be kept to a minimum, i.e. only talk to when necessary to carry out the job and no social chat.
        32. Only religious books approved by Palmar are allowed all others banned and must be burnt. This in effect means virtually any non Palmarian authored book is banned.
        33. Any photos/images with priests who have left the order must be burn/destroyed.
        34. Religious films are banned.
        35. All prayers and hymns not contained in the Palmarian missal are banned
        36. Birthday candles on birthday cakes are banned.
        37. Contact with anyone including relatives who are living with partners and not married is banned. This would include all marriages outside the Palmarian Church since the early 1980's as these marriages are considered invalid.
        38. Throwing coins in a fountain/well/water is banned.
        39. Children must be removed to another room from their classes where non palmarian religious instruction is given.
        40. Horoscopes are banned
        41. Movies containing references to magic are banned.
        42. The neckline of a shirt or blouse etc must when worn be at least 2 fingers width above the breast bone.
        43. Christmas trees are banned.
        44. Images of Santa Claus are banned
        45. Giving or opening presents on Christmas day (25th December) is banned.
        46. Christmas presents must be given and opened on the feast of the Epiphany"

        Some of these rules (banning horoscopes) make sense, but others (no voting) are without justification and are not based on sound principles of moral theology. Mixing good and bad is something the True Church cannot do. Moreover, even the slightest breach of a rule will result in "excommunication." Some were told they had to leave their spouse if he did not adhere strictly to the dress code even around the house!

        A group of clergy were dismissed by Dominguez before he died, and now operate as independents--sedevacantist Palmarians!!

        3. Mary's Little Remnant

         This group of people are living in New Mexico under a seriously deluded man named Richard Ibranyi. He was formerly associated with the "Dimond Brothers" of NY (and mentioned above). Ibranyi rejects all popes "from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as apostate antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and hence not Catholic." (RJMI’s Position & Authority, Current version: 1/2014--See ) He gets together with some of the "brothers" and they decide by private interpretation, and having no formal education, whether each pope has committed heresy.

        He has denounced  St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, St. Bernard, St. Vincent Ferrer (and many others) as heretics. In his own words from his website: "I reject all the so-called popes from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as apostate antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and hence not Catholic. I believe in the deeper dogma that non-Catholics cannot hold offices in the Catholic Church. For an in-depth profession of the Catholic faith, see The Catholic Church’s (sic) Profession of Faith, compiled by RJMI (the initials of his entire name--Introibo)."

        His beliefs change at the speed of light. As of 2012, he accepted all Popes up to Pope Pius IX and all Councils up until Vatican I (1870). He rejected Pope Leo XIII as the first "antipope." He claims to be called as the "witness of the Apocalypse."

        From his site: "I will now address the portion of the… letter that disputed my claim of being one of the witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11. I will start with a question: Would you believe me if I said, “Yes, God has called me to be one of the two witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse?” Does God’s choice depend upon the approval of [a certain group]… or, for that matter, of anyone else? Cannot God choose whom He pleases? Or does God need the recommendation of [a certain group or people]… to confirm the mission He has called me to fulfill. … God has called me to be one of the two witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse. Does that mean this is true? Yes, if I continue to do God’s will; and no, if I do not continue to do God’s will. If I disobey God and fall away from the faith, then I will prove to be unworthy and forfeit the mission God has given me. I am well aware of the fact that if I disobey God, He would annul the mission He has called me to fulfill. Over the years, starting in 1986, God has been testing me by fire and bringing me along this long road to prepare me for the day when this mission will directly oppose the Antichrist. … Some believe that Elias must return in person as one of the witnesses mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11. This is not true. John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of the coming of Elias to prepare the world for the first coming of Jesus Christ. An angel and Jesus Himself said that John was Elias, meaning John was filled with the same spirit of Elias… The same applies to the mission God has given me as one of the witnesses mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11. My mission is to expose and attack the Antichrist and his minions and his evil kingdom and to convert good-willed men, many of whom will be Jews, by turning their hearts to the one and only true God, the Catholic God, and to usher in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I am not Elias but am filled with the spirit of Elias!"

        Need I even comment on this farce?

        As Traditionalists, we are what's left of the Roman Catholic Church, since the Great Apostasy of Vatican II. We base this on sound theological principles, and hold on to the Faith as understood and practiced by all true Catholics from 33 AD to the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. You can see that the groups above are not educated and base their beliefs on private revelations, self-made hermenutics of interpretation,  and grandiose ideas of self-importance. Ibranyi's group resides in a New Mexico city called "Truth or Consequences." It's fitting. If the above individuals, who have turned a deaf ear to the Truth don't repent, they (and their followers) may receive the horrible consequences to come.