Monday, April 27, 2015

Fooled Again: Medjugorje

 I'm a hard and fast opponent of those who would place private revelations (even those approved by the Magisterium pre-Vatican II) as a "solution" to the problems we face after the near universal apostasy following the death of Pope Pius XII. "Fr." Nicholas Gruner has been rightfully derided as the "CEO of the Fatima Industry" for telling people since the mid-1980s the Apocalypse was at hand unless Russia was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the "pope" and "bishops."  Of course, this means Gruner will, of necessity, rule out sedevacantism. He can't ask for money for his "apostolate" if there is no pope to perform this all important consecration. Not only has doomsday not yet arrived after more than 30 years of telling us it was "immanent," but he has written his supporters to ask for a donation and "let Mary's hand guide you as you write your check for the largest donation you can afford." He now even tries to peddle the crazy "apparitions" of Bayside in Queens County, New York City.

 People have asked about Medjugorje, and the alleged appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary there since June 24, 1981. In this post I will lay out my reasons for telling you this apparition is just as false as Bayside, Garabandal, and the spin given to genuine apparitions such as Fatima.

1. Background

 The alleged apparitions began on June 24, 1981 in the small town of Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The "seers" were four boys and two girls. Three were born in 1965, one in 1964, one in 1966, and one in 1971. According to the website The BVM has come there "In Her own words She tells us, 'I have come to tell the world that God exists. He is the fullness of life, and to enjoy this fullness and peace, you must return to God'.

Our Lady's mission is one of peace. She has come to earth to reeducate us and to help us convert and recenter our lives back to God. Our Lady's role has always been one of guiding people to Her Son, Jesus. What an amazing opportunity we have before us! Our Lady's call to conversion is urgent, and we should respond with all our hearts." My comment: Mary has come to tell the world "God exists"? Notice there is no mention of the Great Apostasy of Vatican II. No condemnation of the false Vatican II sect "popes" and no mention of a return to the "One True Church."

The website continues: "Our Lady continues to give messages to six people from the village of Medjugorje: Ivan, Jakov, Marija, Mirjana, Vicka, and Ivanka. These six people (referred to as "visionaries") have received apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary since June 24, 1981. In addition to Her public messages, Our Lady is to give each of the six visionaries a total of ten "secrets" of happenings that will occur on earth in the near future. Some of the secrets pertain to the whole world while others concern the visionaries themselves or the local village. Only one of the secrets has so far been revealed by the visionaries. In the third secret Our Lady has promised to leave a supernatural, indestructible, and visible sign on the mountain where she first appeared. Our Lady said: "This sign will be given for the atheists. You faithful already have signs and you have become the sign for the atheists. You faithful must not wait for the sign before you convert; convert soon. This time is a time of grace for you. You can never thank God enough for His grace. The time is for deepening your faith, and for your conversion. When the sign comes, it will be too late for many."

When each of the six visionaries has received all ten "secrets", Our Lady will stop appearing to them on a daily basis. Currently, Marija, Vicka, and Ivan have received nine secrets, and Our Lady still appears to them every day, wherever they are, at 6:40pm. Mirjana, Jakov, and Ivanka have received all ten secrets, and Our Lady appears to them once per year for the rest of their lives. For Ivanka who received her 10th secret on May 7, 1985 it is on the anniversary of the apparitions, June 25 each year. For Jakov who received his 10th secret on September 12, 1998, it is on Christmas day each year. And for Mirjana who received her 10th secret on Christmas 1982, it is on her birthday, March 18 each year. Our Lady has also been appearing to Mirjana on the 2nd of each month since August 2, 1987 for the purpose of praying for all unbelievers. Mirjana tells us that it is very important that all of us pray for the unbelievers in the world, who are described as those who have not yet experienced God's love. No one knows when Our Lady will give the tenth secret to Marija, Ivan, and Vicka." My comment: So until such time, please buy all you can from our online store!

Finally, "Since the apparitions began in 1981, approximately 40 million people of all faiths, from all over the world, have visited Medjugorje and have left spiritually strengthened and renewed. Many bring back stories of miracles in the form of healings (of mind, body and spirit), supernatural visual signs, and deep conversions back to God. You owe it to yourself and your loved ones, to investigate with an open mind and heart the messages which are given to us by Our Lady of Medjugorje. I invite you to read these messages and decide for yourself how they will affect your life and that of your family." My comment: Notice "people of all faiths" and "conversions back to God" NOT conversions back to the True Faith.

2. The "Five Stones"

 The message of "Our Lady" is to use "five stones" to overcome Satan. They are fasting, prayer (using the Masonic "luminous mysteries" of Wotyla), reading the Bible (no version is specified), confession (almost non-existent in the Vatican II sect), and the Eucharist (which the Novus Bogus does not produce).

  This is enough for any Traditionalist to see that this can't be coming from the Blessed Mother. If your friends still caught in the Vatican II sect need further proof, read on.

3. Problems with The Seers ("Visionaries")

 According to the Medjugorje website as to why none of the seers chose the priesthood or religious life:

  "Our Lady told the visionaries in the early days that she would like them to become priests and nuns but told them that they must pray and descern (sic) for themselves what vocation they felt called to. Our Lady asked that they be the best example they could be in whatever vocation they chose. Ivanka was the first to decide that her calling was married life, and asked for Our Lady's blessing. Our Lady joyfully gave Ivanka her blessing, and added that she had chosen the harder path for her life. I know Marija, Vicka, and Ivan all seriously considered a religious vocation, but after much prayer, they discerned that their vocation was married life. We should not consider the decision to be parents and to bring life into the world a less important or holy vocation than a religious vocation."  (Emphasis mine)

Reality Check: The Council of Trent: On Matrimony: CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

In addition, it is reported by E. Michael Jones (a "conservative" member of the Vatican II sect) that as of the late 1990s one so-called seer, Ivan Dragicevic, was driving a BMW, and living in a large mansion with his wife, Loreen Murphy, a former "Miss Massachusetts" beauty queen. He is also obese, so I guess he threw away the "stone" of fasting. Three others also live in such opulence; even having a private tennis court on the grounds of her mansion. How does all this compare with the lifestyles of the seers at Fatima or Lourdes? Does it seem like these people are "choosing the harder path" ?

4. The Biggest Problem: The Heresy Of Ecumenism

From the FAQ section on the Medjugorge website asking whether the apparitions are just for Catholics: "Absolutely Not! Medjugorje is not just for Catholics. God loves all His people. Many people who come on our trips are not Catholic and come from different faiths and religions throughout the world. What is most important is that we change our lives to put God in the first place. Although a good percentage of those of other faiths that visit Medjugorje do convert to Catholicism, it is only because of what they see in the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Jesus. Through the Eucharist, and the rest of the Sacraments of the Church, the most is given to Catholics and the most is also required. If you have questions about the Catholic faith please do some research. There are many good books which will help you understand the incredible richness of the Catholic faith. We offer many of these books on our web site at:" (Emphasis mine)

Notice they don't convert because the RCC is the One True Church and only means of salvation, She is the original Church (implying there are others that came afterwards). The MOST is given to Catholics? No, the ONLY means of salvation is through the True Church. This passage expresses the "Frankenchurch" heresy that there exists a "Church of Christ" that is more or less present in all sects according to how many "elements" they possess. To have all "elements" is best (the Vatican II sect), but to have just some is good and also leads to salvation. The answer ends with a pitch to buy their books.

Please read what the approved pre-Vatican II theologians had to say about the Church, evil, and good works. learn from the lives of real saints how to proceed in holiness. Forget private revelations. We are not bound to believe in them, and even the real ones like Fatima are subjected to endless controversy as to the "true meaning" and "authentic messages." Put your Faith in the Church and not alleged "Heavenly Visions", which all too often turn out to be religious illusions perpetrated by unscrupulous frauds. 

Monday, April 20, 2015

Denying The Holocaust

 Everyone who reads my blog knows that I'm no fan of Bishop Richard Williamson. Williamson got himself into hot water with Ratzinger (when he still went by the false title "Pope" Benedict XVI), back in January 2009, shortly after the "excommunications" of the four Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) bishops were remitted. It seems that Williamson denied that the figure of six million Jews being killed in Nazi Germany was accurate and also called into question the existence of the gas chambers as the means of execution. Ratzinger, a former member of Hitler's Youth, went ballistic and condemned Williamson's comments calling on him to retract them and effectively derailed the "negotiations" between the SSPX and the Modernist Vatican.

 You might call Williamson's remarks culpably ignorant, offensive, or just plain stupid. In any case they were not heretical. The English-born bishop did not condone murder, or make any claim that runs contrary to the True Catholic Faith and/or Morals. "Holocaust denial" is a crime in Germany, and Bp. Williamson had to stand trial. He ultimately was given a slap on the wrist. Had he molested children and denied the Divinity of Christ, Ratzinger would have hidden him from the authorities and ignored his remarks. Ironically, this man is "recognized" by Williamson as having been a true "pope."

 I bring this up because of the political feud that began about ten days ago between presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul, and Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  Paul refused to tell The Associated Press whether he would support exceptions for abortions in instances of rape or incest or if the birth of a child would risk the mother’s life.

“The thing is about abortion — and about a lot of things — is that I think people get tied up in all these details of, sort of, you’re this or this or that, or you’re hard and fast [on] one thing or the other,” Paul told the AP.

Later in the day, when pressed on the question by a New Hampshire journalist, Paul responded, “Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it OK to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus?” “You go back and go ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s OK with killing a 7-pound baby that’s just not born yet,” Paul told reporters. “Ask her when life begins, and ask Debbie when she’s willing to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.”

“Here’s an answer,” said Schultz, a congresswoman from Florida. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’?

 Pro-lifers complained that Paul should have simply stated that life begins at fertilization and may never be directly killed. Pro-abortionists complained Wasserman-Schultz shouldn't have admitted what Americans already know---the Democratic Party stands for murdering children in the womb at any time and for any reason as long as the professional killer ("doctor") and the mother agree to it.

As a life-long pro-lifer myself, I think Rand Paul should have done what the media did to Bp. Williamson: accuse Wasserman-Schultz of denying the Holocaust. Since the infamous Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973, 57.7 million innocent unborn babies have been legally executed. If Wasserman-Schultz, a Jewish woman, predictably screams anti-Semitism, Paul should have the courage to show how we have an abortion Holocaust, and it mirrors the sentiments in Nazi Germany over abortion. There are also striking parallels between the killing of the Jews and the killing of the unborn. I have the comparisons below.

 1. Abortion in Pre-Nazi Germany

Legal Status
"A pregnant woman who shall purposely cause herself to abort" or "any person" who "shall kill her child in utero shall be subject to a penitentiary sentence." (See Section 218, German Penal Code, 1871)

Mass Demonstrations 
In the late 1920s doctors helped stage demonstrations resembling "theatrical performances" in order to create public sentiment against Germany's abortion law. (American Medical Association Journal, July 19, 1930)

Perpetration of Illegal Abortions
Blamed on "underhanded quacks" (Assessment of medical publication Deutsches Aerzeblatt)

Maternal Deaths
16,000 women die each year. (Greatly inflated figure manufactured by pro-abortion doctors)

In 1933, the Nazi government legalized abortion for virtually any reason and at any stage of development. It was encouraged for eugenics.

2. Abortion in Pre-1973 America

Legal Status
"If any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, or any drug, or any other thing" with the "intent to destroy her unborn child....he shall be confined to the penitentiary." (See Virginia Abortion Statute, 1873)

Mass Demonstrations
In the late 1960s doctors helped stage demonstrations with "theatrical flair" in order to galvanize public opinion against state abortion laws. (Former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, 1979)

Perpetration of Illegal Abortions
Blamed on "butchering quacks"(Assessment of medical journal Southern Medicine and Surgery)

Maternal Deaths Attributed To Illegal Abortion 
Up to 10,000 women die each year. ("I confess that I knew the figures were totally false. But, in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure." Dr. Bernard Nathanson)

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand, a position in line with resolutions enacted by pro-abortion medical associations. Mothers are now told, with new medical technology, if their child carries a birth defect so that they can abort a "defective" child who will only be a "burden" to the parent and society.

3. The Killing Centers: Concentration Camps In 1930s Nazi Germany

The extermination of unwanted or "inferior" human beings before and after birth.

Asphyxiation of unseen victims inside chamber walls; killing in gas chambers

"Within 5 minutes everybody was dead" inside the chamber. (Auschwitz survivor Dr. Miklos Nyiszli, 1960)

17,280 corpses were disposed of "per twenty-four hour shift. And the ovens, with murderous efficiency, functioned day and night." (Auschwitz survivor Dr. Olga Lengyel, 1947)

4. The Killing Centers: Abortion Clinics ("Abortuaries" --Abortion + Mortuary)

The destruction of unwanted or "defective" human being before birth.

Dismemberment of unseen victims inside uterine walls.

"The abortion itself [takes] only two to three minutes." (Eastern Woman's Center, 1978)

"From eight in the morning until midnight, seven days a week, doctors working in ten operating rooms performed vacuum aspirations on an endless parade of pregnant wombs." (Former abortion clinic director Dr. Bernard Nathanson, 1976)

The similarities are frightening. Now with Obamacare, the destruction of adult "unfit" persons may not be far behind by consigning them to "health centers" with restricted or inferior health care. For screams of "anti-Semitism" there are two salient points:

  • Both Jews in Nazi Germany and the unborn in 1973 America were equally declared "non-persons"

  • If it's claimed that with the unborn we "don't know when life begins," that admission rules out abortion. The abortionist is forced to admit that at some point the fertilized egg becomes a human baby. If you're a hunter in the woods and you don't know if you see a human or a deer in the bushes, you are morally prohibited from shooting because innocent human life MAY be at stake. Likewise, the burden of proof is on the abortionist to prove the unborn are not human life worthy of protection before killing it otherwise they may be killing innocent human life. 

 Bp. Williamson was put on trial for denying certain aspects of an event that ended in 1945. He was then condemned by the false "pope" at the Modernist Vatican. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz denies the unborn, at any stage of development, are people. The Holocaust of legalized abortion is at 57.7 million and continues unabated. She will not be tried for "Holocaust denial" nor was her statement condemned by false "pope" Frankie, or any clergy of the Vatican II sect. After all, as Frankie says, why get all upset over "small-minded rules?"

Monday, April 13, 2015

Richard In Wonderland

I really don't know what to say when someone comes up with an outlandish theory, then it gets proven wrong, and the person still trumpets it as something good. This is what happened with Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance (SSPX-SO). A few years back, Williamson came up with a novel idea to escape the iron clad logic of the sedevacantist position: the Concilliar "popes" are not guilty of heresy because of "mind rot" which prevents them from realizing they're heretics. Fr. Anthony Cekada ripped the idea apart, calling it "mentevacantism" (i.e. "the mind is vacant") and showing how (once again) Williamson makes assertions with no reasons and evidence from theologians and Magisterial documents to back them up. After the drubbing he took from the critique of Fr. Cekada, you think Bp. Williamson would drop the the idiotic and unsupported idea he spawned. No such luck.

 In his recent e-letter entitled Eleison Comments, Bp. Williamson resurrects his idea and, making an allusion to Fr. Cekada as a "hard-biten sedevacantist" who ridiculed his idea as "mentevacantism," states that the "label will do"! To show how utterly without merit the ideas of the "recognize and resist" so-called Traditionalists really are, I will set forth Williamson's latest explanation of his theory, and give a condensed version of why it remains theologically untenable.

1. Bp. Williamson's Thesis

  •  Since the Protestant Reformation, men have been steadily liberating themselves from God.
  • To do this they must liberate their minds from reality, because all reality comes from God.
  • This is "mind rot" or "mentevacantism" because God designed the human mind to "run on reality" not fantasy.
  • From 1517 to 1958 the popes "beat back the mind rot" but it was infecting the faithful and clergy.
  • In 1958 "even if Cardinal Siri was elected" (!) the "liberals" had the ability to force John XXIII upon the world
  • "But what is a liberal? He is a dreamer, living not in the real world but in a Wonderland of man’s own fabrication. However, as more and more human minds switch off reality and launch into the dream, so he has less and less chance of realizing what he has done, because more and more the world all around him is being taken over by the Wonderland"
  •  "Then the Conciliar Popes are not wholly conscious villains, because in their sick minds they are serving the true Church by changing the old Church out of all recognition, by Wonderlanding it."
  • Even in the case of Paul VI, he wept over vocations, condemned contraception, and issued a "Credo of the People of God" so even with him, Our Lord kept His promise to "look over Peter." 
Got all that? Now for a real reality check:

2. The Teaching of The Church

(a) As theologian Prummer taught  “The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost: …(c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. (Manuale Iuris Canonci (1927) pg. 95. In other words, if Francis is off having tea in Wonderland and "out of touch with reality" he would still not be pope for those who are out of touch with reality (e.g. schizophrenics) are precluded from papal office. 

According to Wernz-Vidal:  “Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are… those afflicted with habitual insanity.… By falling into certain and perpetual insanity, the Roman Pontiff would automatically lose pontifical jurisdiction… For the certain and perpetual insanity of the Roman Pontiff (not doubtful or temporary) is the equivalent to death, and through death the Roman Pontiff certainly loses his jurisdication.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian 1938] 2:415, 2:452)

If Francis is too crazy to be guilty of heresy because he's out of touch with reality, he's too crazy to be pope!

(b) Williamson sets up a totally false principle: Modernism empties the mind of the capacity to recognize truth — and absolves the individual of responsibility; evil is really produced by a sick society, so no individual has personal responsibility for his/her actions. This is what secular liberals do to to exonerate criminals; it wasn't his/her fault because of the conditions of the society in which he was raised, hence we must be lenient when they murder, rape, and steal. Catholicism teaches that we are responsible as individuals, and societal conditions are no excuse for sin. Heresy is sin.

(c) Williamson's mentevacantism is a natural outgrowth of being an Apb. Lefebvre sycophant who checks his brains at the door. As an astute commentator on my post "Pater Noster?" observed: "You ever notice SSPX guys begin each sentence with 'what would the Archbishop do?'. Or 'what would the archbishop think?' Etc..They (SSPX) act as if ABL is Jesus Christ." Indeed. They should wear a necklace "WWLD"--"What Would Lefebvre Do." Ask the SSPX or SSPX-SO about any topic and you get the same answer that conflicts with Church teaching! The New "Mass" is evil, but not promulgated correctly so it's not binding. Vatican II was "just pastoral" and not binding. The excommunication of the Archbishop and the four priests he consecrated was "unjust" and "invalid" because of a "state of emergency." And the list goes on and on and on. 

 Bp. Williamson talks about the Vatican II sect being "in Wonderland," but it's his false and ridiculous ideas that get "curiouser and curiouser." He would like us to think Francis has an empty mind, but it's the bishop's own head that seems to have space for rent. In the words of Lewis Carroll:
“I don't think..." then you shouldn't talk, said the Hatter.”  

Monday, April 6, 2015

Annihilating Hell

 The blog Southern Orders is run by a Vatican II sect priest, one "Fr." Allen McDonald. To his credit (and my surprise), he actually wonders in print if Begoglio said something heretical! His post of March 27, 2015 is entitled "IS IT HERETICAL TO BELIEVE THAT GOD CAN ANNIHILATE A HUMAN PERSON'S IMMORTAL SOUL?" In an interview (yet another!) that Francis had with an atheist journalist, the following exchange took place:

Scalfari: What happens to that lost soul? Will it be punished? And how?

The response of Francis is distinct and clear (netta e chiara): there is no punishment, but the destruction/annihilation of that soul. [The Italian word is annullamento, literally, "turned into nothing", meaning here the same as the more usual Italian word for annihilation, annientamento]

All the others will participate in the beatitude of living in the presence of the Father. The souls that are destroyed/annihilated will not take part in that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is finished. And this is the motivation of the Church’s missionary activity: to save the lost. And it is also the reason why Francis is a Jesuit to the end.”

This is public heresy. As Fr. DePauw used to say: "The Jesuits are always good for a laugh or a heresy--usually both." Remember that Catholic theology clearly teaches that a heretic cannot be pope! (For a detailed analysis with complete citations please see "Traditionalists, Infallibility, and The Pope" by Fr. Cekada at Notice, too, the way the question McDonald asks is twisted in such way as to avoid the charge of heresy for Frankie. Can God annihilate a human soul? Of course He can. The question is rather, "Has God decreed the eternal conscious bliss or suffering of a human soul, and therefore annihilation is precluded by His Own unchanging Will?" Of course, the answer, given by the Magisterium is "yes."

I will reprint the blog in red color and respond in green below.

Is what Pope Francis supposedly said heretical or not? Keep in mind that an interview with an atheist who then reports the interview from his memory is not a magisterial teaching. It is an opinion of Jorge Bergoglio as Jorge Bergoglio. Keep in mind that when Pope Benedict wrote his trilogy on Jesus he stated that theologians were free to critique and disagree with some aspects of his writings, but of course in an academic way. So popes can have opinions to which we may agree or disagree but we should be able to back up our negative critique with academic prudence.

He said it alright! For further proof of his heretical teaching see
As far as Bergoglio saying something in his personal capacity, Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the Faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic. Further, in the case of Bergoglio, he was a manifest heretic before his "election" so he could never have attained the office of the papacy in the first place! He was not suggesting that he was open to correction, and he can't be ignorant (at his age) of what the Church taught pre-Vatican II. This is not an "opinion"--it is rank heresy that can be shown by Church teaching on the subject.

I was taught, maybe heretically, I am not sure, that if God ceased even to think about us we would cease to exist. It is only through the power of God that we are. This seems to imply to me that we can be annihilated in body and soul!

He wonders if the seminary taught him heresy? Thank you Vatican II! This, however, is not heresy. The power of God's conservation holds everything in existence.

But I was also taught that we are created with an immortal soul. Is that true? Or can God annihilate the immortal soul of a mortal being? Certainly this is true if God is all powerful, which of course He is!

Once again, God is omnipotent, and could annihilate the soul; but WILL He actually do so? No.

Thus what wiggle room does Pope Francis and any Catholic have in describing what hell actually is? It seems to me that there are no dogmatic descriptions of hell that are considered infallibly defined. Correct me if I am wrong.

Ok, you're wrong. According to theologian Pohle, "The Catholic Church....has repeatedly and solemnly defined that, 'the wicked [will receive] eternal punishment together with the devil'" (IV Lateran Council) And again, "Sacred Scripture inculcates this truth so frequently and unmistakeably that it has been justly said that no other Catholic dogma has such a solid Biblical basis." (See Pohle, Dogmatic Theology 12:46).

For example, I believe that the Church teaches about the existence of hell, but the Church has never taught infallibly that any human soul actually exists there, although this is true in the realm of the theoretical. The Church does teach that Satan and the other fallen angels dwell in hell. But they are angels not humans.

Not quite. While it's true we can't say for certain that anyone is in Heaven except for the canonized saints, we have All Souls Day (November 1) to remind us that there are others in Heaven, even if we can't say for certain whom. Likewise, we are not allowed to say with certainty that any man has definitely been damned, but that does not mean that Hell is empty and only for the devil and his demons. We do know of one damned soul from Scripture, "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born." (See St. Matthew 26:24) Christ clearly teaches that Judas Iscariot would be better off if he had never been born. Before conception, you do not exist. If after death you don't exist once again (annihilation) or go to Heaven, how could non-existence be better than the same condition of non-existence before birth? The passage only makes sense if he was damned as a result of betraying Christ by an act of his own free will.

A Catholic certainly can embrace the theological construct that an immortal soul condemned by God to hell suffers punishment and it is tortuous and could involve flames. But a Catholic could also believe in the torture and flames in figurative way that the immortal soul in hell experiences an absence of God by choice just as the soul did in life. The torture and flames symbolize the eternal knowledge that one has freely chosen to cut oneself off from God and reaps the fruit of their misdeeds and mortal sins. The immortal soul actually exists in hell and has knowledge.

Once again, theologian Pohle to clarify: "Must this term [fire] be taken literally or may it be interpreted in a metaphorical sense? ...The Church has never issued a dogmatic definition on the subject... However, since the literal interpretation is favored by the great majority of Fathers and Scholastics, it may be regarded as "sententia certa." (Ibid 56-57)

But if what Pope Francis believes as is reported by an atheist, that the immortal soul isn't immortal after all that God can annihilate the immortal soul and cause it to cease to exist, wouldn't this be hell too? The hell is that one is gone, completely, body and soul and has absolutely no existence of immortality even in hell, now for the soul and at the Final Judgement in the here after with their body raised from the clay of the earth.

Is it heretical to believe the soul can be annihilated by God and thus in the Final Judgement and the resurrection of the dead, only the dead bodies that have souls in heaven will be raised from the clay of the earth and fashioned after the Glorified Body of our Savior and joined to their immortal soul in heaven? (Emphasis in original)

Fourth Latern Council defines: "All men shall rise again with their own bodies, which they now have, to receive according to their deeds , whether good or bad: the latter, everlasting punishment with the devil, the former, eternal glory with the Lord."

The Athanasian Creed says: "All men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their works; and they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire."

Theologian Pohle: "Hence, it is an article of faith that the souls of the damned as well as those of the Elect will be reunited to their bodies on the last day." (Ibid, 132-133)

Conclusion: Yes, "Fr." McDonald, to believe that only the Elect will be resurrected, and the damned will be annihilated, is heretical. I ask all my readers to pray for you and your readership, so that you all may see your way out of the Vatican II sect before anyone realizes the suffering of Hell is real when you are (God forbid) already there.

Monday, March 30, 2015

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Defective Intentions

 One of the most misunderstood requirements for sacramental validity is that of intention. All Traditionalist Catholics know the basic teaching of the Church on the requirements for a valid sacrament:

  • proper administer
  • matter
  • form
  • intention
  • no obex (i.e. obstacle) on the part of the recipient 
 The role of intention, i.e., "intending to do what the Church does in the administration of a sacrament" has been used by the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) to attack the consecrations of Archbishop Thuc. Some Thuc bishops and their priests casts similar aspersions against the consecration of Bp. Kelly of the SSPV by Bp. Mendez. And, of course, there's the old charge that Abp. Lefebvre was neither bishop nor priest due to his ordaining/consecrating bishop (Cardinal Lienart) lacking proper intention for being an (alleged) Freemason.

It is unquestionable that the Church requires proper intention for a sacrament to be valid. Unlike the matter and form, which can be readily detected, the intention of the sacrament is not as easy to discern. What is a proper intention? What makes it defective? How does it apply to various cases, and to the Vatican II sect's sacraments? These are the questions I will seek to answer in this post.

1) What is "Intention?"

 In American civil law, there is something called mens rea, i.e., "mental state" which is necessary for legal culpability. For example, in order to be found guilty of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill the person. If the intent was lacking, even though the physical act resulted in the death of a person, the accused would be found not guilty. The physical act must be accompanied by a mental state in order for the crime to be committed.

 Likewise, in the sacraments, the minister of the sacrament is duty bound to subordinate and adapt his will to the Will of Christ Who gives the mandate. Christ continues perpetually to live and work in the Church. Therefore, it suffices to have the intention to do what the Church does. (See theologian Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, (1960), pg. 343)

 There is a debate as to whether an external intention is sufficient. To seriously perform the outward ceremony, but not to have a corresponding internal intention to do what the Church does, is considered insufficient by the unanimous opinion of the theologians since the 13th century. (See De Salvo, Intention of the Minister of the Sacraments, CUA Press (1949), pg. 92).

The minister does not have to intend what the Church intends, such as the production of the effects of the Sacraments (e.g. the forgiveness of sins, transubstantiation, etc.); nor does he have to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite. It suffices if he has the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians (See Ott, op. cit., pg. 344)

2) The Validity of the Sacraments is Independent of Both the Minister's Worthiness and Beliefs

 This is the logical result of # 1 above. The minister performs the sacrament "in the person of Christ" Who is without sin. The priest consecrates the host saying "This Is My Body," not "This Is Christ's Body."

3) Is Having the Proper Intention Easy to Discern?

 Yes. A "virtual intention" to perform a sacrament is all that is required. Without getting into the technicalities of a "virtual intention," the Church teaches that it “is certainly present in someone who regularly performs sacramental actions.” (See theologian Coronata M. Conte a Coronata, De Sacramentis: Tractatus Canonicus (Turin: Marietti 1943) 1:56) The mere act of putting on vestments and going to the altar is considered sufficient evidence for virtual intention.

 Furthermore, 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..”

4) Provided the minister seriously performs all the sacramental rites, there is no need for being doubtful about the validity of the sacraments, for it is presumed that the minister has the requisite intention, unless he externally manifests the contrary. (See De Salvo, pg. 105)

 As Pope Leo XII stated in Apostolicae Curae, declaring Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void," "The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is something by its nature internal, but so far as it is manifested externally, She is bound to judge concerning it."

5) When is an Intention Defective?

  • When the minister merely simulates a sacrament as in jest
  • When the minister has a positive contrary intention, "I do not intend to (baptize, ordain, confirm) this person"
  • No minister is presumed to have such unless/until externally manifested
  • If the person is declared (by competent professionals) to be habitually insane


 It is easy to see that formulating a necessary intention for validity is not difficult when you have a valid minister of the sacrament who seriously sets about to perform the traditional pre-Vatican II rite. There are witnesses and photos showing Bp. Mendez performing the rite of episcopal consecration on Fr. Clarence Kelly.  He never manifested a positive contrary intention, and was not declared insane. Ditto for Archbishop Thuc and Cardinal Leinart. 

 In the Vatican II sect, an argument has surfaced that the Novus Bogus "mass" may now be valid. Apologists for the sect have stated that since 2011, when they changed the words consecration  of the wine back to "for many" (instead of "for all"), there can be no more doubt as to validity. Not quite.
Most of their priests are invalidly "ordained" in the Pauline Rite of ordination making them laymen. It doesn't matter what form they use if they are not priests. Furthermore, the words "the mystery of faith" were not restored, and many theologians believe them to be integral to the form.

 However, let's assume that an elderly priest who went along with the Vatican II sect in the 1960s (ordained in the 1950s) is of sound mind. Let's further assume that he uses the complete, correct form of the consecration in English during the New "mass." We have a valid mass, right? NO! Here we would have a defect of intention!

 How, you ask? In 1969, The General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM) replaced the "Words Of Consecration" with an "Institution Narrative." Deploring Traditional Catholic theology, and scholastic philosophy, the Modernists don't like "magic words" that effectuate "myths" like transubstantiation. Rather, the whole "Eucharistic Prayer" (replacing the Sacred Canon) now causes the Body and Blood of Christ to be present--present insofar as the bread and wine no longer signify the same role (the heresy of transignification).

 In 2001, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Ratzinger, approved as valid a "mass" by schismatic Assyrians that contains no words of consecration! (See "Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East") The document approved by Ratzinger claims that "the Words of Eucharistic Institution" are contained "in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise, and intersession." This statement overthrows EVERYTHING the Church has taught about sacramental forms.

 Also in 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani issued his famous Ottaviani Intervention  against the New "mass." On page 44, it states: "All this, in short, changes the modus significandi of the Words of Consecration--how they show forth the sacramental action taking place. The priest now pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an historical narrative, rather than as Christ's representative issuing the affirmative judgement This is My Body. (Emphasis in original) Pre-Vatican II treaties on invalidating defects that occur in the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist, insist that the Words of Consecration must not be recited as part of an historical narrative.

 According to theologian/rubrician O'Connell: "Defects in the Form of the Sacrament...Any change in the form, by omission, addition or interpolation which would alter the meaning would make the consecration invalid...The Words of Consecration have to be said not merely as an historical narrative of words once used by Our Lord---as the Celebrant recites them, e.g., in the accounts  of the Last Supper which are read in the Mass during Holy Week.....but in a present affirmation, speaking in the person of Christ, and intending to effect something here and now, by pronouncing these words."
(See J. O'Connell, The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal   [Milwaukee:Bruce Publishers], 1941), pgs. 225-226)

 According to the pre-Vatican II principles of sacramental theology, the recitation of the form as part of a narrative is an external manifestation of a defect of intention (See principle # 5 above) The priest, using a rite alien to the Church (Novus Bogus) recites the words as part of an historical narration. In the True Mass, the priest must pause before reciting the Words of Consecration, and then (bending over the host/chalice to be consecrated) pronounce them distinctly, attentively, and secretly (just loud enough for him to hear). This manifests the intention to effect transubstantiation in the here and now by virtue of his sacerdotal power. In the Institution Narrative, he simply recounts what took place nearly 2,000 years ago, and manifests a contrary intention--a defect theologian/rubrician O'Connell discussed.

Traditionalists should stop questioning unnecessarily the intention of alleged "Masonic bishops" and start questioning the intention of everything Vatican II. Those intentions are defective, invalidating, and downright evil.  

Monday, March 23, 2015

Pater Noster?

 On the feast of St. Joseph, March 19, 2015, Bishop Richard Williamson consecrated Fr. Jean-Michel Faure as a new Traditionalist Bishop. Pseudo-Traditionalist is more accurate. Bp. Williamson was one of the four priests consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 for the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The position of the SSPX has always been a rejection of sedevacantism and sedeprivationism. They hold the "recognize and resist" idea that you can recognize the post-Vatican II "popes" as legitimate Vicars of Christ, and yet "resist" their errors. In 2012, Bp. Williamson was expelled from the SSPX for his criticism of General Superior Bp. Bernard Fellay in his efforts to reconcile the SSPX to the Modernist Vatican. In reaction to Bp. Fellay's "dialogue" with Rome, Williamson founded the Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance (SSPX-SO).

 Did Bp. Williamson, and the priests who followed him out of the SSPX, embrace sedevacantism? No! They simply will do what the SSPX has been doing without the negotiations with "Pope" Francis. I've criticized Bp. Williamson quite a bit in my posts for his inconsistent positions and (at times) whacky ideas/behavior. The priest he consecrated, Bp. Faure, is only two years Williamson's junior at age 73. You would think he would choose a successor a bit younger. That being said, why the need for this consecration? Remember, if there is a pope, you need a papal mandate for a bishop to be consecrated. Therefore, Williamson and Faure find themselves excommunicated from their "pope." (For Bp. Williamson it's the second time; the first was  by JPII after his 1988 consecration, and it was rescinded by Ratzinger in 2009). In place of a mandate from Francis, Bp. Williamson produced one of his own making (!) which reads as follows:

" We have a Mandate to consecrate from the Roman Church which in its fidelity to Sacred Tradition received from the Apostles commands us to hand down faithfully that Sacred Tradition – namely the Deposit of the Faith – to all men by reason of their duty to save their souls.

For indeed, on the one hand, the authorities of the Church of Rome from the Second Vatican Council down to today are driven by a spirit of modernism which undermines in depth Sacred Tradition to the point of twisting its very notion: There shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, turning away their hearing from the truth, turning unto fables, as St Paul says to Timothy in his second Epistle (IV, 3,5). What use would it be to ask such authorities for a Mandate to consecrate a bishop who is going to be profoundly opposed to their most grave error?

And, on the other hand, to obtain such a bishop the few Catholics who understand his importance might have hoped, even after Vatican II, that he could come from the Society of St Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like the four consecrated for them in 1988 by a previous emergency Mandate. Alas, when the authorities of that Society showed by their constant turning towards the Roman authorities that they were taking the same modernist road, that hope proved to be vain.

From where then could these faithful Catholics obtain the bishops essential to the survival of their true faith? In a world making political war day by day more on God and on His Church, the danger for the Faith seems such that its survival can no longer be left to depend on a single fully anti-modernist bishop. The Church herself asks him to appoint an associate, who will be Father Jean-Michel Faure.

By this handing down of the episcopal power of Orders, no episcopal power of jurisdiction is assumed or granted, and as soon as God intervenes to save His Church, which has no more human hope of rescue, the effects of this consecration and of its emergency Mandate will be without delay put back in the hands of a Pope once more wholly Catholic."

 You might ask, "How does this jive with the "recognize and resist" idea that Francis is pope? Answer: It doesn't. Bp. Williamson continuously makes gratuitous assertions without one iota of theology and canon law to back them up. Everything he does runs strictly counter to what the Church teaches through Her approved theologians.

Here's what the Church teaches:

1. The Pope has Universal and Complete Primacy Over the Entire Church

 The name "pope" comes from the Greek word for "father." Like an earthly father rules over the family, the Holy Father does the same for the Church in a more absolute manner. As taught by theologian Van Noort, the pope's power (as defined by the Vatican Council in 1870) is:

  • binding authority which demands obedience
  • universal in regard to place (everywhere) and business (faith, morals, discipline, and government)
  • ordinary--i.e., he possess his jurisdiction over the Church by virtue of the office he holds and may exercise it at any time he chooses
  • direct and episcopal--he can act not only on individual bishops but also on the faithful without any episcopal mediation
  • supreme--there is no other person (or persons taken collectively) that have a power greater than or equal to his
  •  absolute and complete in itself. He possesses in himself alone the plenitude of power, and not merely a portion of that power (See Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2:280-282)
2.  The Church, with the Pope as Her visible Head on Earth, is indefectible. Her teaching cannot change, and because She is infallible, Her laws cannot give evil

Again, from Van Noort:

"The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. ...But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life." (Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115; Emphasis in original) Therefore all of what the Church legislates with papal approval is infallible; it cannot be evil or in error.

3. Rejection of a Command or Decision of a Pope Can Happen In One of Three Ways:

  • Rejection of the thing commanded. This occurs when one disobeys something ( e.g., a fast or restitution enjoined by the Pontiff) because he considers it too difficult. This results in sin, but not separation through schism because he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the Head of the Church.
  • Rejection of the command when you regard the pope in his capacity as an individual. As the pope is not above human weakness, he might make a command moved by hatred, envy, or some other sinful motive involving an individual decision (not one affecting the whole Church). The pope might also command something sinful (e.g., kill someone he dislikes). In such a case neither sin nor schism is committed by this refusal to obey. 
  • The rejection is based on his official capacity as pope. The person is guilty of schism and is no longer a member of the Church because he does not wish to submit to the authority of the pope who gave the command. (See theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology 1: 542-543)

 Now, let's consider the "mandate" of  Williamson when analysed under these principles. 

Para. #1: We have a Mandate to consecrate from the Roman Church which in its fidelity to Sacred Tradition received from the Apostles commands us to hand down faithfully that Sacred Tradition – namely the Deposit of the Faith – to all men by reason of their duty to save their souls.

The Roman Catholic Church acts through Her visible Head, the pope, under normal circumstances. How can you get a mandate from the Church when you recognize Francis and he has not consented to give you one?  Are you suggesting the pope gave something evil? See principle #2 above. 

 Para. #2 For indeed, on the one hand, the authorities of the Church of Rome from the Second Vatican Council down to today are driven by a spirit of modernism which undermines in depth Sacred Tradition to the point of twisting its very notion: There shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, turning away their hearing from the truth, turning unto fables, as St Paul says to Timothy in his second Epistle (IV, 3,5). What use would it be to ask such authorities for a Mandate to consecrate a bishop who is going to be profoundly opposed to their most grave error?

The authorities--including the man they consider "pope" is in "grave error" that needs to be opposed? See principle #2 above. The Holy Ghost would not permit the pope to teach a "most grave error" and to be driven by "a spirit of Modernism" which is heresy.

Para. #3 And, on the other hand, to obtain such a bishop the few Catholics who understand his importance might have hoped, even after Vatican II, that he could come from the Society of St Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like the four consecrated for them in 1988 by a previous emergency Mandate. Alas, when the authorities of that Society showed by their constant turning towards the Roman authorities that they were taking the same modernist road, that hope proved to be vain.

Lefebvre made up a "mandate" too! Salvation came not from the pope and his hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction established by Christ, but through the SSPX set up in opposition to the appointed hierarchy! Now they "defected" by----wanting to be united to the pope??

Para. #4 From where then could these faithful Catholics obtain the bishops essential to the survival of their true faith? (How about from the pope?)In a world making political war day by day more on God and on His Church, the danger for the Faith seems such that its survival can no longer be left to depend on a single fully anti-modernist bishop(You mean the pope is not ant-Modernist? That would make him a heretic! But a heretic can't be pope, so he's either anti-Modernist, or a false "pope."). The Church herself asks him to appoint an associate, who will be Father Jean-Michel Faure.(The Church--apart from the pope--asked for Fr. Faure to be consecrated? Imagine that!)

Para. #5 By this handing down of the episcopal power of Orders, no episcopal power of jurisdiction is assumed or granted, and as soon as God intervenes to save His Church, which has no more human hope of rescue, the effects of this consecration and of its emergency Mandate will be without delay put back in the hands of a Pope once more wholly Catholic."

You mean we have a "partially Catholic" pope? Sounds like Vatican II ecclesiology! Doesn't Williamson reject the idea of non-Catholic sects being in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church ---as the heretical teachings of Vatican II tell us? Yet it seems Mr. Bergoglio can be in "partial communion" with the office of the papacy!

 Bp. Williamson, and the newly consecrated Bp. Faure are of a Protestant mind- set. They recognize a man as pope, then apply their own made up principles (alien to the Catholic Faith) to justify doing what they want. Then they go about as they please in the hopes that some day Bergoglio (or his successor) will do what they think is right. How sad.. Only when there is a general rejection of the errors of Vatican II sect and its false "pope" can we come closer to an imperfect general council electing a real Pontiff whom we can obey and call "our father."

Monday, March 9, 2015

Celebrating Our Own Demise

"The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
- Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations)

 Here In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that the Big Apple would become the nation's first major city to close the public schools in observance of the two most "holy" days for Moslems, Eid al-Fitr, and Eid al-Adha. I wonder if Pope Pius XI, who composed the most beautiful prayer of the Consecration of the Human Race to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, could have imagined such a state of affairs. The prayer asks for the conversion of those "in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism." (Of course the Vatican II sect eliminated the prayer which was ordered to be recited every October on the Feast of Christ the King).

 De Blasio is quoted as saying, "People who criticize it (the closing of schools on Moslem "holy" days), I think, should go back and look at the Constitution of the United States. We are a nation that was built to be multi-faith, multicultural." While it's true the US Constitution is full of Masonic ideals (like indifferentism--the idea that one religion is as good as another), I challenge anyone to show me where it states that we must give all religions the honor of holidays. It's probably written next to the part that states women have a right to kill their unborn children. What about holidays for Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and even Satanists? Let's not forget that almost all of the people in the US in 1787 were professing some sect of Christianity (and some were members of the True Church as well), so it's obvious why Christmas and Easter were celebrated. The Constitution may allow you to honor what you like, but it does not enjoin official recognition.

 Antipope Francis has written in his "encyclical" Evangelii Gaudium paragraph #253: ...We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants into our countries..." Really? Here is just a partial listing of what Moslems in this country have done to achieve their purpose of the "Islamification" of the West and the destruction of all forms of Christianity:

  • CSCOPE Curriculum (being used in 70-80% of Texas schools) teaches "Allah is the Almighty God," the Boston Tea Party was conducted by "terrorists" and frames 9-11 attackers  as "freedom fighters." Concerned parents were told they could not see the curriculum and were accused of being "bigots." (See and
  •  A Dearborn, Michigan, McDonald's Restaurant was sued over alleged Halal (Muslim sensitive) meals. $700,000 was awarded. Meat served in Halal meals must be slaughtered in the name of Allah. (See
  • Pressured by Islamic leaders, the Obama Administration eliminates mention of "Islamic Terrorism" or any negative mention of Islam, including simple quotes from the Qur'an - from CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and US Military Training Manuals (Nov. 2011). (See 
 Meanwhile, Frankie goes and prays to the false god Allah! As reported by the Wall Street Journal:
"On the second of a three-day trip to Turkey, the pontiff removed his shoes before entering the Sultan Ahmet Mosque, known as the Blue Mosque for the blue tiles embellishing its walls. After a tour of the cavernous 17th-century mosque, he stood alongside Istanbul Grand Mufti Rahmi Yaran, facing in the direction of Mecca, and bowed his head in long prayer." (See 

 The Modernists and the political left are quick to brand any opposition to Islam a mental disorder, i.e., "Islamophobia," just as opposition to the sodomite agenda is "homophobia." The facts speak otherwise. Soon, the Moslems will overpopulate the contracepting Christians of the West, and accomplish what their huge armies in days gone by couldn't do. Ironically, what's happening now was condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Mirari Vos: "...and from this most putrid font of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous view, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience should be asserted and claimed for just anyone." (Emphasis mine). 

 Not only are we giving Moslems liberty of conscience, we're celebrating their false and evil holidays. If Frankie and the loony left-wing aren't stopped, soon we will be in a country dominated by infidels and forced to pay homage to the "martyrs" of 9/11.